The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sexual harassment will only be eliminated when men take part in ending it > Comments

Sexual harassment will only be eliminated when men take part in ending it : Comments

By Michael Flood, published 10/11/2010

Hey guys, if you're not part of the solution...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All
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.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 9:30:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 9:35:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 9:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:26:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 11:35:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just another attempt to emasculate the Australian male. Now we are even encouraged to speak up against our mates for making jokes. To show that I still have my balls heres one of my favorites: what do you say to a women with two black eyes? ....Nothing shes already been told twice.
Posted by Andrew., Wednesday, 10 November 2010 12:38:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The White Ribbon Campaign has run its natural course and Flood is now trying to expand definitions and making a plea for a new sinecure. He says:"We’ll also need education campaigns to undermine the dodgy gender norms which feed sexual harassment of women: women are sexual objects and men are women’s superiors. Men are less likely than women to perceive incidents as harassment and more tolerant of harassing behaviour, particularly if they have traditional attitudes to gender."

Oh really? Who do you think you might recommend to write and run these re-education programs, Dr Flood?

Violence against women in Australia is overwhelmingly an Aboriginal issue arising out of poverty and social displacement, not the huge and widespread problem that the white ribbon mob tried to pretend it is and harassment is not violence just because Flood wants a new job. It's not even harassment a lot of the time and rarely intended that way when it is, I suspect. A (very) recent survey (of my friends and work colleagues)found that none of those surveyed had ever intended to sexually harass anyone.

See, I can do "qualitative research methods" too...
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 12:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< A minority of men treat women with contempt, and it is up to the majority of men to help create a culture in which this is unthinkable. >>

I agree with Michael Flood, but I'd suggest that a cursory examination of comments on gender-related issues posted to OLO would indicate that contempt for women is far from unthinkable in this forum's culture.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 12:57:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah CJ, aren't you just the Alf Stewart of OLO.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 1:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi CJ, nice to see you back. Mate I have to take issue with you on that comment, but what else would you expect?

Perhaps many of these ladies are only getting back a little of what they have dished out for years.

Out here in the “acreage” belt I see so much of it. She, compelled by biology or some other force wanted to breed, & grabbed the best bloke she could get. You can see that for many years, if not always, he has been a necessary evil. She has nothing but contempt for him, basically because he puts up with the hand life has dealt him, & her.

She on the other hand is highly frustrated, although she has the life she chose, it offers her little satisfaction. A new bathroom or kitchen, costing heaps, will distract her for a little while, but it’s not the answer. The expectation was much greater than the realisation. It’s not the women’s mag life she dreamed of.

She’s probably getting ready to dump him, but at the time that will give her the greatest percentage of the assets.

I can quickly become enemy No1 with these ladies, when I invite their blokes to drive one of my old cars to a show for me. It’s the only way to get a couple of cars to a show. Watching the lift these blokes get is great. When they pour over an early Holden, like the one their family had, & talk to the owner, they come alive.

From then on, I can feel the frost from these ladies at fifty yards. She is dead scared I'll get him interested in a life of his own.

So CJ, I reckon there are more downtrodden blokes, than harassed women, at least out here where I live, & probably everywhere.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 2:19:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C J Morgan,
Your back. Where have you been, and why dd you go?

The way the article is worded, all men carry out sexual harassment of women and dominate women, and that includes you.

So you should be ashamed of yourself. Or the author should fell ashamed of himself for writing the article.

One or the other.

But I don't think the author will feel ashamed of himself. I somehow think he gets paid to make the statements he does.

Or his employers haven't actually corrected him as yet.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 3:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Women have led the way in challenging sexual harassment. It’s time for men to step up and join them.'

I don't really think so. A few women have. A few men have. The rest of society either isn't affected by it or minds their own business and doesn't make a scene when they see it occurring.

Basically what the whole article is saying is men hold more responsibility than women for the actions of other men. I don't agree, I think the person being harassed is much more responsible for speaking up about their own feelings of being harassed (which may not even be appreciated by the harasser as others have said) than random bystanders that happen to be male.

If the article focussed on all random bystanders having more responsibility for putting a bully in their place, well, I could accept it. But I can only think of 2 reasons why Flood would concentrate on men...

a) All men are guilty by virtue of their gender
b) A Paternalistic and patriarchal and patronising view of men being the white night defenders of women. Strange from a feminist.

Fact is women even have more scope for standing up to harassers as they're not as likely to be punched in the head as men.

anti,

I would love to see Floods reaction to Jack Marx's critique of his White Ribbon campaign...

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/cross_fingers_day/
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 3:56:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the authors, it’s a “new study”, its recency giving it traction in these info-bulimic times. Which is not to say it has to be actually “new” at all, but simply a regurgitation of existing data packaged in a new box. An Assault On Our Future, the document supporting White Ribbon Day, was itself such a report - not a fresh “survey” at all, as was suggested by the media alarm, but merely an essay in which the author referenced work compiled by others, some of which dated back to the early 90s, those reports themselves being “studies” of other reports and trends from even earlier times, many of the “children” referred to in the “new” data now probably having children themselves, the attitudes attributed to the youth of today having been extracted long ago.

......

Thus a reference to a previous report that references a previous study will become a constituent part of a legitimate “new report”, the burdon of methodology removed from the back of the new “researcher”. There is plenty of fodder out there for this sort of folly. Of course, conspicuously absent from the “new report” will be references to previous reports that refute the aims of Cross Fingers Day. The report will thus be not unlike a genuine survey in which answers that confound the researcher’s already predetermined findings are ignored. That’s not a report at all, and any reporting upon it is closer to advertising that journalism.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 4:00:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Using statistics (real or imagined) gives the element of authenticity to one's opinions. However making unreasonable generalisations about either gender makes it appear that one's arguing on an emotional level, not a mature intelligent one.

For example instead of saying, "Collingwood players are rough hoodlums" a more effective approach would be a subtle hint that the players often use physical force to overcome the opposition.

It does not take long to discover that we all have a streak of prejudice within us which, at times, seems a compulsion. While we all
like to think of ourselves as tolerant persons, even passionate in our belief that we all are equal, it is apparent that we all have a continuing obligation to work on our attitudes. It's the height of
arrogance to believe that we are superior to others, yet this attitude is hard to eradicate.

Our aim should always be to behave with respect towards others, and to encourage this in all people.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 4:28:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many years ago, students at primary school had to undertake reading comprehension. I suggest Vanna, and some others, that you need some remedial lessons in this art or else you are maliciously misreading the text. I am always amazed at the contempt for women demonstrated on OLO.

Great article Michael.
Posted by fancynancy, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 4:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suz

interesting point you make. Before I was a Christian, and in my 'misguided youth' I was at a party where a bunch of Air Force blokes were present and a few local 'chicks'. But there was a bit of a chick shortage and there was one chatting with me who caught the eye of a bloke who ooozed "I am God's gift to women" (in his own estimation I mean).. he approached were we were sitting, took her by the hand, (as if I didn't exist) and DRAGGED her off with him, and put the hard word on her.

Stunned, I really didn't do anything... just figured she would do the right thing and sort him out. To my 'very very' gloating satisfaction, after a few minutes she returned.. alone...and we resumed out conversation. He made a bit more of an effort, later, but gave up eventually.

He would be a prime candidate for the type of male you described.
Looking back... I'm glad I didn't physically confront the bloke, because that would have indicated I had no faith in her.

Had he tried to take her anywhere against her will, I would have stepped in. I was able to see him mouthing off to her and her sweet smile of 'no thanks' after he grabbed her, so it didn't come to that.

In the end we went back to her place and had a great chat. Glad it didn't turn into more because her brother rocked in unannounced at about 1.00am :)after which..I went back to Base.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 5:04:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS. (Suz).. that kind of character is pretty much beyond redemption on the issue of how they treat women unless they experience an awful personal tragedy in my view.

So while it remains true that sexual harasment won't end until blokes wake up.. .I can only say (for the author) "Remarkable grasp of the obvious"

I suppose the only thing I can add is that it's up to we others to reign in with advice such people.. seldom though do they listen to anything above their navel.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 5:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AGiR, there are some women who like that sort of thing as well.

Human sexuality is terribly broad and varied in its expression. Narrowing the ways in which expression can legitimately occur is terribly discriminatory. If it is unreasonable to discriminate against transgenderism or homosexuality, then it is surely unreasonable to discriminate against other modes of sexual expression just because they make some other people uncomfortable.

The person you described was rude, in my view. I'll bet he got a lot more sex than you did, nonetheless.

Houellebecq, Jack Marx has a knack of getting to the nub of an issue. Impeccably qualitative at every step, mind you...
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 5:45:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah CJ, aren't you just the Alf Stewart of OLO.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 1:44:06 PM

Benk. Thats why he's missed. Or lets all of Australia move to the right. Yes, I can see it now:)

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 6:53:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Vanna

CJ was sin binned on the same day I was..for a month :) He was eligible to return when I did...but clearly did not.

But..(deep breath) CJ.. welcome back!

ANTI.. yep...I'm sure that bloke got a lot more sex than I did.
But I also bet his life was empty, bitter and lonely.
(lots of)"Sex" is not the answer to those things.

I shudder to think of such people just 'left' to their own devices... no Word of Salvation or Grace to them.. utterly lost... more so than the average Joe because they rely so much on their own smooth/suave selves for their sense of identity.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 7:03:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pull the other leg Michael. Columinist Sam on all men are liars had an article on this,

It basically comes down to one woman's interpretation, if she finds the bloke attractive, it is a chat up, if she finds him unattractive he is a sleaze bag.

http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/?page=3
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 7:32:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You might all be interested in THIS case.. which has caused major controversy in the USA.

1/ Muslim man rapes wife.
2/ Activist progressive Judge says "It cannot be rape"

I thought 'no' means 'NO'.

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

This is where SHARIA law was taken into account by the Judge.

It's also WHY Oklahoma voted to NEVER have judicial decisions made with either International or Shariah law taken into consideration.

1/ Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, Oklahoma

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/oklahoma-pass-laws-prohibiting-islamic-sharia-laws-apply/story?id=10908521

2/ Activist Progressive Judge grants restraining order against law.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/judge_issues_temporary_injunction_against_okla_sha.php

So....rape of a muslim woman by her husband is 'ok' to progressive judges ? ? ?

I think that Judge should be given the old 'heave ho' off the Bench for ever.

oh..OHHHHHH how I would crack up if some Christian used the same argument "Wives submit to your husbands" and seeeee.. just SEE if that same judge would come to the same decision!
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 8:03:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jack Marx is a real scream.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20051023-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/2004mag/02_feb04mag/jamesh_09.htm
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 8:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is Tom's tale.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922rolph.html

Whilst it has very little to do with sexual harrasement. It does relate to gender politics.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 8:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is why olo is so great. Fully fueled people with much to say.

This is the best site ever. Sexual harassment! Its all in your heads.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 9:13:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why did they marry women whose hearts were not into the land in the first place Hasbeen?

All of the women married to Farmers and Graziers [life long friends of mine] work part-time or full-time to pay for their families bills and groceries Hasbeen. 30 couples I mixed with at a recent get-together [all farmers and graziers wives] travel up to an hour daily in order to work and meet most of the household costs while raising their children. Basic fare, none of those new kitchens or renovations many people undertake in the cities.

No swish latest 'mod cons'.

These wives are on cloud nine to replace their washing machine no longer working. Or buy a few basic clothes for their kids.

Many of my friends and their mothers married to Farmers and Graziers [my aunties included]worked in town and on the land to pay for all of their luxuries. I was no different.

Your farming community must have been doing extremely well over the past 15 years [discounting recent rains].
Posted by we are unique, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic <"A (very) recent survey (of my friends and work colleagues)found that none of those surveyed had ever intended to sexually harass anyone."

Ok Antiseptic....so you go up to your friends and colleagues and asked them what? "Hey guys, did you ever sexually harass a woman?"
You were surprised when they said "No, of course not!"?
What rubbish.

"Sexual harassment in the workplace is any form of unwelcome sexual attention that is, or that you find, offensive, humiliating or intimidating..."
http://au.reachout.com/find/articles/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace

Believe me when I say that if some guy is commenting negatively or aggressively on the size of your breasts, or the unlikely chance of you 'ever getting a f###', it is NEVER a come-on.
It is sexual harassment.

Surely even you guys can tell the difference?

Houellebecq <"The rest of society either isn't affected by it or minds their own business and doesn't make a scene when they see it occurring."
'Make a scene'? In my mind, those people who stand up and say something against sexual harassment are true heroes.
Only cowards shut their mouths and let it go on in front of them.

Algoreisrich, thank you for your understanding words. At least you and CJMorgan seem to grasp the obvious conclusions that the author came to.
Real men will make a stand against sexual harassment, and THAT sort of strong behaviour is the real turn-on for the women around them.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fact is women even have more scope for standing up to harassers as they're not as likely to be punched in the head as men.

Really? What planet have you lived on Houellebecq? Obviously not around blokes working in the real world.
Posted by we are unique, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:03:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Physical and sexual harrassment is not gender related, I agree with you on your previous comments posted on OLO.

Although there are still many blokes in the workforce and via other avenues, I meet who are not bothered one iota about the consequences of both physical and sexual harrassment or violence used against women, particularly towards their 'partners in life' or women they are interested in getting to know, or appearing vulnerable in the workforce.

There is always the element of sexual harrassers in both genders in society, why is it, that after working with thousands of people regularly over 30 years, I notice it more with males as opposed to females?

Do female 'sexual harrassers' hide their behaviour well?
Posted by we are unique, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:21:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forgetting (for the sake of brevity) the arguments regarding the nuances of sexual harrassment, the author makes a good argument.

Most men would, I am sure, admonish overt sexual harrassment that was clearly causing distress. Not all men are compelled to silence or tittering through peer pressure or lack of courage to stand up for a woman (or a man for that matter) who is experiencing harrassment of some sort. Yes, a few men might perceive sexual harrassment as some sort of game or a masculine right (and rite) ie. something to giggle about behind the bike shed, but most don't so men are already taking part in reducing sexual harrassment. SH has absolutely reduced over the years and much of it driven by the support of men.

As the author said, most men are not harrassers - most are rational and can tell the difference. Most men I have worked with would rein in another male who stepped beyond the boundaries of commonsense as regards SH. Most men possess the gumption to step up to the plate.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A quick look at the author’s workplace found that the Employment Equity and Diversity Department had three staff members, all of whom were female.

That’s about the right workplace culture for a feminist, male-hate university.

It also has the following policy regards language:
&#61607; a. promote the use of non-discriminatory language and presentation in all University of Wollongong documents and publications;
&#61607; b. promote the use of non-discriminatory teaching practice in classrooms;
&#61607; c. develop guidelines and regulations for students' use of non-discriminatory language in their written work and oral presentations;
&#61607; d. establish a procedure for settling complaints and grievances about discriminatory language, presentation, and teaching practices; and
&#61607; e. inform all staff of their responsibilities under the policy and of the existence of a complaints procedure; and distribute suitable educational material to assist staff in compliance.
http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058706.html

Now, judging by the authors liberal use of sterotyping statements such as “women are sexual objects and men are women’s superiors”, the author’s article would not abide by this policy.

Judging by the use of completely exaggerated statements such as “women endure a daily ‘dripping tap’ of unwelcome sexual behaviour” the article would not pass any type of scientific scrutiny.

Although much loved by bigoted, discriminatory feminists, a question is “How can the author be employed at taxpayer’s expense when the author does not abide by the policies of his workplace.

Is he still employed at that workplace because he is much loved by bigoted, discriminatory feminists?
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 11:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sexual harassment will only be eliminated when women take part in ending it.
Posted by cornonacob, Thursday, 11 November 2010 1:11:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzieonline demonstrate aptly that it all comes down to one woman's opinion as too what is defined as sexual harassement.

<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.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:03:01 AM
>

So by definition only real men agree with Suzie and they aren't harassers and if men disagree with her, she then defines these people as not being real men.

In reality these laws once formed to protect women, in the workplace, quickly escaped the original definition, that of being boss/worker and it being repeated unwelcomed behaviour.

Now it applies to all male /female interactions where any behaviour by a male that is unwelcomed by a female is viewed as being harassement.

The only trouble is what is acceptable behaviour to one woman, is not necessarily welcomed by another. As such it quickly became a method of trying to manipulate and bring men to heel, with their tails between their legs.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 11 November 2010 7:06:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze,

'Real men will make a stand against sexual harassment, and THAT sort of strong behaviour is the real turn-on for the women around them.'

So it's the patriarchal white nights then. Option B.

BTW, what do 'real women' do?

I agree all people should say something, but our society is based around minding your own business and.... English-ness.

So why does the author decide it's only up to men to do this? Has he proven that women in social situations are more likely make a stand against sexual harassment? Nope, he asserts that it's more the *responsibility* of men than it is of women to make a stand against sexual harassment.

I don't agree. A more empowering message would be to tell women not to put up with it rather than tell them to expect a white night to intervene.

But no, if a 50kg accountant with a centre part wont cop a beating from a 120kg gorilla for the honour of 'being a man' then there is something wrong with men? When the woman could have yelled stop it and stood up for herself with the protection of a societal taboo about hitting women.

we are unique,

What world are you living in? How many women have you seen punched in the face? It's well proven men are by far more often assaulted than women. A guy can get punched in the head for spilling a drink at the pub. The vast vast majority of men will not hit a woman. Men on the other hand...

pelican,

'Most men possess the gumption to step up to the plate.'
Do women possess the 'gumption'? Why should men be braver than women? Is it mens job to protect women?

For a bunch of feminists there is an amazing propensity here to define women as helpless victims needing 'real men' to come to their rescue. Obviously then I won't now be considered sexist when I state that a real woman knows how to cook a good meal for her man and keeps a clean and tidy house.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 11 November 2010 7:50:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael Flood backs me up girls...

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1650

'Male-on-male violence is the most common form of public violence. In the assaults at licensed premises reported in the Sydney study, 80 per cent of victims were male and 88 per cent of incidents involved an alleged offender who was male.'

And, here's the money shot...

'As long as a culture of aggression and *male honour* persists, violence will continue to happen'

So, your appeals to 'male honour', ie 'real men', the white knight (yes I cant believe my previous spelling either) are part of the cause of male on male violence.

'Male on male violence will only be eliminated when women take part in ending it.'

'Hey girls, if you're not part of the solution...'
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 11 November 2010 8:17:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Holly you missed one "But too many men are still caught up in the fiction that you have to be “10 feet tall and bulletproof” to be a real man." - Being a "real man" because women only value "real men" is pretty important.

It's not just the fault of women who promote the idea of "real men" though, responsibility lies with all women to reign in other women, to change the culture.

Then we could start on the role women play in promoting the desirability of "bad boys" and the impact that has on levels of violence, sexual assault etc.

Anyone want to put money down backing the idea that Charlie Sheen would be struggling to get a date at the moment despite the well publicised incidents involving him and women?

What about Shane Warne or Tiger Wood's and their history of choices in relationship? Would either of them be struggling to find female company at the moment?

How responsible do the women who would not touch any of them with a 30ft pole feel for the choices other women make?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 11 November 2010 8:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I cannot fathom why people choose to make this discussion into a gender argument. Surely any behaviour that conveys insulting, hostile and degrading attitudes and leads to negative personal and professional outcomes should be condemned by us all?

Reading the various comments, there seems to be a discrepancy regarding the types of actions, behaviour and communication that people consider sexually offensive. As a result this probably may contribute to the continued existence of sexual harrassment.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 11 November 2010 9:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right Lexi. Many people do have differing views on what constitutes sexual harassment.
Most mature people do understand the difference.

Houellebecq <"So it's the patriarchal white nights then...BTW, what do 'real women' do?"
No, sexually harassed women don't want white nights, they just want to feel safe and respected in their own workplace.
Real women report bad behaviour in their workplace so other women don't have to go through the same thing they went through.

I assumed we were mainly talking about sexual harassment in the workplace here? Many posters seem to confuse sexual harassment with the sort of drunken behaviour in nightclubs where everyone drunkenly thinks they are 'hot stuff' and thus able to behave badly. I am including both genders in this statement.

Most men won't bash another man in the workplace because they suggest that other men stop sexually harassing women...to suggest they would is doing a disservice to men.

Luckily for victims of sexual abuse in the workplace, there are laws to protect them, and if the law upholds the fact that a crime has been committed, then that is fair enough for me.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 11 November 2010 10:22:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In clear cases of sexual harassment, I agree with Pelican that everyone should speak up. However, when we do, the reaction that we always get goes along the lines of "women love it". The tosser in question will then cite his (typically extensive) history of "conquests" as proof of his knowledge of women. There is nothing more that the rest of us can say.
A few weeks later, he has another girlfriend, who gushes about how confident their new guy is. No matter how arrogant a bloke is, there is always someone who loves his confidence.

Furthermore, as James mentions, some women have extended the definition of sexual harassment to include any flirting from any bloke they dislike.

These conventions need to be clear, or they will never be taken serious.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 11 November 2010 10:50:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The conduct of the individual is influenced by the norms of the surrounding society. In the past inequality between women and men, and a tendency for men to view women as actual or potential sexual property - that is, as sex objects confirmed the view that the role of women was to gratify men. The woman's feelings were not at issue.

Today, most people no longer hold this view and most people do not sexually harrass others. Sexual harrassment in the workplace is now illegal, and since corporate and other employers may be held responsible for their employees' conduct - may well be curtailed in the future.

There are some people, it seems, who are convinced that any normal person will be flattered by sexual attention in any form. The myth has it that people enjoy the attention, that they find it easy to deal with, and that the behaviour is trivial in any case. Surveys show the reverse is true. Almost unanimously, people declare that uninvited and unwanted sexual advances make them feel trapped, defeated, intimated, or demeaned.

This is understandable, for these norms of sexual harrassment even though they're practiced by a small minority have a wider social significance and determines the type of society that people want to
live in.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 11 November 2010 2:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lex,

'I cannot fathom why people choose to make this discussion into a gender argument. Surely any behaviour that conveys insulting, hostile and degrading attitudes and leads to negative personal and professional outcomes should be condemned by us all?
'

The gender argument is set by the title and the headlines, and even the whole article that focuses on mens responsibility to stop other men from harassing women.

'should be condemned by us all'

I agree. But the authors point is it should be especially condemned by men, and that men hold a special responsibility to stop it that women do not.

'violence – whether harassment, domestic violence, or rape – is a ‘men’s issue’. '
ie: By virtue of my gender, I bare responsibility to police the actions of other men, and women hold no responsibility for such.

Well, I see women as integral participants in society, and I see men as no more responsible than women for what other people do.

In what area of society do women hold responsibility for the actions of other women? Or do women never hold any responsibility for society at all?

Suze,

'No, sexually harassed women don't want white nights'
So it's option A then.

'Real women report bad behaviour in their workplace so other women don't have to go through the same thing they went through. '

But what about women who only observe sexual harassment of other women? Aren't they under the same obligation as men to speak up? If not why not? And if so, why does the author state it's a mens issue and men hold all the responsibility?
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 11 November 2010 4:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
"Do women possess the 'gumption'? Why should men be braver than women? Is it mens job to protect women?"

Without generalising, the assumption is that women are already anti-sexual harrassment and many are showing some gumption by making complaints in the face of ridicule and derision. That is also very brave.

One day it won't be seen as brave, but just part of the normal process in saying "some behaviour is not acceptable". Until then...well it will take men and women to step up to the plate.

It is not men's jobs to protect women but it is nice when they do if the situation merits. I don't see the world in terms of "someone's" job but if someone is weaker (physically) and another person intervenes when they see a bully at work it is usually appreciated by men and women alike.

People are who they are and will act according to character - it is not about assigning 'jobs'.

The author is saying that to combat a problem it will take everyone and that means men and women.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 11 November 2010 5:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most civilized societies do not condone unacceptable forms of behaviour such as rape, sexism, racism, crime, violence, or sexual harrassment.

Strictly speaking many norms are not regarded as particularly important, and nonconformity to them may be tolerated or even ignored.
The social reaction you get if you turn up late for appointments, don't eat three meals a day, or occassionally wear mismatched socks is very different from the reaction you get if you mug an old lady in the street, participate in orgies, or announce that you are Napoleon.

Minor deviations from norms, or deviations from norms that nobody bothers much about, have few if any social consequences and are not of particular sociological interest.

What is primarily being talked about here however is violations that are considered offensive by a large number of people.

And that should be of equal concern to both genders.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 11 November 2010 6:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi

Yes, some blokes have a sex drive and see some women as potential partners. Him wanting her to do something doesn't necessarily equal control. You ask people to do stuff without facing this criticism and I want the same right. If you want men to contribute to gendered debates, you need to stop excluding us by interpreting any comment we make about any woman as him wanting to control her.

"Almost unanimously, people declare that uninvited and unwanted sexual advances make them feel trapped, defeated, intimated, or demeaned." You meant "usually make them feel trapped, defeated, or demeaned." The same behaviour is judged differently on different occasions.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 11 November 2010 6:15:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue under discussion is sexual harassment and it should be of concern to both genders as I've stated several times. Surveys have indicated that victims do not enjoy the attention, they do not find it easy to deal with, and that the behaviour is not considered trivial by the victims.

Sexual harassment either in the workplace or elsewhere in society should be taken seriously by both genders. The norms of this kind of
interaction requires both men and women to get involved in stopping behaviour that is both offensive and harmful
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 11 November 2010 9:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi I think both men and women are already involved in stopping it and speaking out against it.

The point's being made can I think be summed up as
- Men who are not involved in sexual harassment bear no more responsibility for it than women who are not involved. Flood appear to think differently.
- It's only harassment if the recipient does not like it, that does not mean that the same behaviours will not be liked by others or even rewarded. Many women still expect/demand that men take the initiative yet get very upset when men get it wrong.
- One of the concerns is of scope creep, the definitions might be about repeated unwanted attention but some start to leave out the repeated portion or vary other parts of it to suit their own issues.
- Flood has a history of attacking men. I and others don't recall him ever raising the same kind of points about the responsibilities of women. We are just a little bit over his tactics.

Genuine sexual harassment would be a horrifying thing when it occurs just as most harassment's are horrible to be on the wrong end of. To some extent we are unlikely to be ever totally free of some regardless of cultural values.

Continuing to push the cultural reshaping approach too hard can bring about it's own grief's. There are some pretty funny feminist jokes around about men, should I be upset by them or laugh along with the funny ones? Some of the issues come from societies odd mixed standards about sex and sexuality. There are still a bunch of hangup's and relics of past damaged values impacting on how well people deal with sexuality. If we want an end to harassment the steps should include moving forward from some of the hang up's.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 11 November 2010 9:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi, we have been over this issue of sexual harassment in many different threads before on OLO, and these guys will NEVER change their mind about the nasty women of the world being the cause of all men's bad behaviour and situations.

I live in hope though ...sigh :)

Houellebecq, <"But what about women who only observe sexual harassment of other women? Aren't they under the same obligation as men to speak up?"
Of course they are...and you know it. No one here has ever said they don't.

<"And if so, why does the author state it's a mens issue and men hold all the responsibility?"

The author doesn't state anything of the sort. It is definitely a problem everyone has to work together to deal with.

The author correctly believes that the majority of sexual harassment of workmates is carried out by men, so naturally he wanted to concentrate on trying to change their behaviours by using other men and women to shame them into behaving properly.

It sounds perfectly logical to me.

I am only glad the author is male, because any female who wrote the article would have been soundly flogged by the keyboards of many of our posters!
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 11 November 2010 9:57:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lots of good points fellow OLO contributors. Still don't see your point of debating against each other, putting each other down, playing the blame game like some of you do, coz that's not going to change anything.

If you have valuable knowledge, share it for others to learn. If you want to put others down, start by looking in the mirror and put yourself down first. What make one human more superior then the other? Learn how to respect yourself and who you are before you even start making an assumption on what others want to post.

We all know sexual harassment exist, it's just a fact of life. Women aren't the only ones that have to deal with this, men do as well. Look at it this way, years, and years ago, we didn't even have this much of awareness on this topic, we didn't even have much rights to take measures in order to protect ourselves against this kind of treatment.

It isn't as bad as you think, because there was more rape and more abuse if we look back in time. Those who care want it to change. and it will. because it already has. Work together to build up our society for a better future. Stop the personal attack. We all want the same thing.

I have a lifetime(pretty short) experience with sexual harassment. I know it is something I have to live with so I choose to make it as safe as possible, and I've have had to learn to accept strangers saying and doing the strangest things to me, when thy do not even know me. Should they be punished because they no not better that the should respect every female as they should respect and mother, and every male as they should respect a father. This is how it is..

hey, i bet it would've been way worse in the 50's. cheers
Posted by jinny, Friday, 12 November 2010 4:39:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzeonline:"I am only glad the author is male, because any female who wrote the article would have been soundly flogged by the keyboards of many of our posters!"

Unlike the fulsome welcome given to the loathsome Flood. Do you ever actually read any of the responses before you post, Suzie? Thought not...

You see, Suzie, it's not the gender of the writer that matters (except to you), it's the quality of the output. Unfortunately, the quality of feminist tracts is nearly universally abysmal. Flood's work is more deeply abysmal than most.

Pelican, the Flood puffpiece is not about "bullying" it is about "harassment" and those are not synonyms. The first is an objectively assessable event - "she threatened to file a complaint of harassment against me if I didn't do what she wanted", "he withheld my promotion because I had disagreed with him in a meeting", etc. An independent third party would agree that the behaviour was purposefully designed to harm the target, by the nature of the behaviour and of the relationship between the parties.

Harassment, on the other hand, may be entirely a subjective event. The "perpetrator" has no intent to "harass", but is simply acting on the basis of expressing his own sexuality and hence, there can be no "crime".

I made the point earlier that if it is not acceptable for me to be offended by the actions of homesexuals in expressing their sexuality, then it should not be acceptable for someone else to be offended by me expressing mine.

I believe the two situations are entirely ethically congruent, yet we have laws that protect the right of homosexuals to be offensive to and of women to be offended by heterosexual males doing no more than what comes naturally. Once upon a time women correctly regarded the attentions of men as complimentary, not an insult. Perhaps the real problem is that men are too selective?

I'd really like to see a strong High Court matter on one or other of these laws. I believe the ethical contradictions are such that the Court would be highly critical.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:42:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze and Lexi,

'The issue under discussion is sexual harassment and it should be of concern to both genders'
'The author doesn't state anything of the sort.'

Did you even read the article. Nowhere does it mention anything about women having any responsibility for policing sexual harassment, the whole article is about men stepping up to the plate, and saying that women already do.

'trying to change their behaviours by using other men and women to shame them into behaving properly.'

Bu11shit! He only ever mentions using *men* to shame them.

'Sexual harassment will only disappear when men take an active role in ending it'

'Most men think sexual harassment is unacceptable. But too often we turn a blind eye, stay silent, or laugh along'

'I support the White Ribbon Campaign, which focuses on the positive roles men can play..'

'violence – whether harassment, domestic violence, or rape – IS A 'MEN'S ISSUE.'' (Exactly what I am arguing the author is saying!)

'Men of goodwill can play a key role. '

'Leadership from men at the top is critical.'

There is simply no way you can read the article and get 'using other men and *women* to shame them'.

You're being dishonest.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 12 November 2010 7:26:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzieonline has already provided an excellent example of how one womans opinion decides what is acceptable to her, maybe not acceptable to another woman.

Next Suzie escalates from sexual harassement to sexual abuse.

<Luckily for victims of sexual abuse in the workplace, there are laws to protect them, and if the law upholds the fact that a crime has been committed, then that is fair enough for me.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 11 November 2010 10:22:30 AM
>

Harassement and sexual abuse are two separate issues.

The use of the term 'Sexual abuse' creates images of incest, rape, sexual assault, because the use of that term, is used mainly in these cases.

If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules?
http://www.menweb.org/ifmenhav.htm

Perhaps the only way we will ever stop sexual harassement in the workplace would be to have separate workplaces for men and women.

Now why does socalled sexual harassement occur, it comes down to gender politics, Pyschologist Toby Green used the term about men being sexually underfed, I doubt extremely strongly that this issue will ever be resolved. As Fry said recently women do not like sex as much as men.

So apart from castrating men, it will always be an issue, until society changes how it views men's behaviour.

Perhaps another perspective is that the men who are accused of being sexual harassers, just might be feeling socially incompetant. It could also be because they are acting in a bravado manner.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 12 November 2010 7:44:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti
I acknowledged the nuances but assumed we are talking about legitimate sexual harrassment without the need to define it in minutae every time these issues come up. Sexual harrassment and bullying are part of the same behaviour - again I mistakenly used the world bully instead of harasser.

Poor Michael Flood copped an earful just because he rightly suggests that men have to be part of the solution and like women, not be afraid to speak out as well. However, the definition of sexual harassment requires the 'receiver' to make the complaint as she/he is the one who determines if the behaviour is sexually inappropriate. That does give a bit of leeway either side barring the obvious SH which includes touching, groping and constant harrassment for sex or dates when the recipient is clearly disinterested or where there is intimidation to keep one's job.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:01:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah bless James.

You are a beautiful sensitive soul. A 'real man':-)

As the girls would no doubt agree, while there are a few grey areas in anything, it's really not that hard to tell sexual harassment from asking a chick out. Sure clumsy propositions from nerds could be claimed as such, but most women are not really scared of men who are so obviously terrified of women.

It's about power, and no doubt the men on here don't feel and have never felt powerful in their relations with women (benk;-) so they just cant relate. I think women underestimate how many men really don't feel powerful, which is why the feminist critique of the powerful men abusing their power rankles so much.

'Harassement and sexual abuse are two separate issues.'

All these words are interchangeable these days. Just like Mr Flood articulates in this article, the jump from lewd comments to violent rape is a tiny one.

'violence – whether harassment, domestic violence, or rape'

It's all on that slippery sliding scale. See there used to be things like 'rape', but now we use terms like 'sexual assault' for purposes of inflating statistics by bringing in totally different things.

But on top of that there is a bigger game of this 'sliding scale' of 'mens attitudes' and 'mens culture' that stretches violent rape right down to looking at porn, to looking at beautiful women scantily dressed in advertising, to just looking at women, hell just being attracted to women is about to be sucked in, then hey presto, just being a man is next!

'As Fry said recently women do not like sex as much as men.'
Na he didn't. That was what was reported. Germaine took the chance to get some attention from it too.

I think women like sex as much, they just have more to lose and are under more risk when indulging in anonymous sex in secluded public toilets. I think the smell of stale urine turns them off more than it does men. Smell is important to women.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:08:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican "Poor Michael Flood copped an earful just because he rightly suggests that men have to be part of the solution and like women, not be afraid to speak out as well."

That's not why Flood get's an earful. I think it's fairly obvious in the comments that he is singling men out (again) for responsibility for other men's actions that he never seems to single women out. He seems to be implying that men are doing a less than women.

He has too much history in this area to be given any benefit of the doubt.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:10:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert
Clearly men are doing more as the rate of SH is much reduced. As a woman I remember what it was like in the 70s/80s - stories that the young would find hard to believe in our more enlightened 21st Century. Men and women have come a long way on this issue including the bra burning feminists.

Some of the comments one reads even on this forum, indicate that some men still just don't get it and perceive insult when the subject of SH comes up. It really isn't about attacking men but protecting men and women from harrassment at work. It really is that simple even with the nuances (distracting as they are) which can be worked through using some commonsense.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:27:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

'Poor Michael Flood copped an earful just because he rightly suggests that men have to be part of the solution and like women, not be afraid to speak out as well. '

Bu111111shit! Man, I cant believe you can continue to be this dishonest. The whole article is about men and doesn't even mention women.

'like women'? no effin way man! He never suggests anywhere that women should not be afraid (or even are afraid) to speak out against sexual harassment.

Heading: 'Sexual harassment will only be eliminated when men take part in ending it '!

Synopsis: 'Hey guys, if you're not part of the solution...'

Conclusion: 'Women have led the way in challenging sexual harassment. It’s time for men to step up and join them.'

Basically he's saying women observers of sexual harassment always speak up, and it's time for the recalcitrant men to join them. As I said in my first post, some women have raised and campaigned for this issue (and also a few men like Mr Flood for instance), some have been affected and defended themselves assertively ( a lot haven't, and I think they are under more obligation than random bystanders who happen to be men), but on the whole most people could do more to stand against it. But the author believes it's a 'mens' issue', and men hold special responsibility.

Why is it all women are deemed to have done their part due to a few women campaigning against it and speaking up when they are affected, but all men are deemed to be especially responsible for stamping it out due to a few men who harass women?

'It really isn't about attacking men'

Then why doesn't the article say women should also not be afraid to speak up and why does he call it a 'mens issue'?

I don't believe women are currently more likely than men to speak up when another person is sexually harassed. The author asserts this with no proof at all.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:39:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Sexual harrassment and bullying are part of the same behaviour"

I dispute that. Bullying is usually objectively assessable, sexual harassment is purely subjective in many (most, possibly) cases.

One of the features of our law is that there must be a "mens rea" (a conscious intent) with respect to the criminality of behaviours. Thus we accept that sometimes bad outcomes occur with no bad intent. The state of mind of the person responsible for the behaviour is important, regardless of the outcome or the way someone else may perceive the behaviour itself. Some trials spend a great deal of time trying to work out whether a mens rea existed.

Much of the law that has been put forward around gender issues makes much of the response of the "victim", but discounts the state of mind of the "perpetrator". It effectively means that a man cannot afford to take the chance that he will ever be put in a position where it becomes "his word against hers".

In fact, a huge amount of the rhetoric, such as the Flood foolery, is designed around the assumption that the intent of men should always be assumed to be bad and that it therefore bears no further examination of motive. It's pure poisoning of the well, one of the most basic of logical fallacies.

Flood has copped an ear bashing from me because I think he's a self-server looking for a free ride. His stuff is not constructive, it's destructive and divisive, designed to pander to the particular groups that control funding for his particular style of poison pen. It helps to perpetuate myths and stereotypes that are distinctly distasteful. I reject it utterly.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 12 November 2010 10:05:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Speaking up" will achieve little. These blokes typically have very thick skins. They will happily put up with being told to piss off by 100 different women, just to have sex with the 101st. The only thing that will stop these blokes is when they stop being rewarded for being assertive. Women need to follow a policy of never, ever, ever, ever rewarding assertive behaviour. It doesn't matter if he is cute, rich, lead singer of the band or captain of the football team, never meaning not ever.

I know this means walking away from something that they enjoy, but that is the price of having principles. At the moment, nice guys pay all the cost of fixing this problem. We need women to fix their own problem and creepy guys to lose. You will be shocked at how quickly these blokes will change.
Posted by benk, Friday, 12 November 2010 11:18:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,
"In fact, a huge amount of the rhetoric, such as the Flood foolery, is designed around the assumption that the intent of men should always be assumed to be bad and that it therefore bears no further examination of motive. It's pure poisoning of the well, one of the most basic of logical fallacies."

I would agree with that.

The author has never written anything except portray men as abusers and oppressors of women.

Narrow-mindedness and bigotry.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 12 November 2010 11:31:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you been on the weed Houlley.

The title of this article is "Sexual harassment will only be eliminated when men take part in ending it".

That is the premise of the article, it perhaps contains a perception that some men aren't contributing but many comments on OLO suggest it is mainly men who still think SH is not a problem.

Correct me if I am wrong by referring me to a bevy of female posters who have pushed that argument. Most women recognise the nuances - it is insulting to suggest otherwise.

A problem like SH cannot be eliminated without the support of men - that is all the article promotes. It would be impossible and we would not have come this far without the support of men for obvious reasons. That does not mean women can take a back seat and wait for hand holding.

Some of you guys are just champing at the bit to find offence.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 12 November 2010 11:43:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judging from some of the comments it appears that not everyone knows the difference between acceptable flirting and unwelcome, unlawful behaviour. Clearly there is a need to educate the public - men and women, employers and employees about the difference, about its nature, prevalence and implications at the personal, business and community level.

The bottom line is that we need to develop a culture where acts of sexual harassment will not be tolerated.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 12 November 2010 1:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi

Show a bit of backbone. Clearly explain how people other than the "victim" can tell the difference between flirting and sexual harassment in all cases.

It is easy to criticise others' views. Coming up with an opinion of your own takes a little more courage.
Posted by benk, Friday, 12 November 2010 1:25:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk,
I would agree with that.

The most filthy jokes I have heard in the workplace have come from women, and the most disgusting emails I have seen were sent by women.

Also intriguing is that a woman is almost twice as likely to be injured in the workplace BY ANOTHER WOMAN than by a man.

Also intriguing is that the majority of women PREFER a male supervisor, because they feel more secure and are less likly to be bullied than by a female supervisor.

None of this has been mentioned by the author, harboured by a university and employed at taxpayer's expense to carry out their bigotry, misinformation and discrimination.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 12 November 2010 2:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Vanna, you make some wonderful assumptions. Instead of hysteria and venom, how about giving us some evidence for your claims.

Reading Michael's article rationally (unlike some posters here who seem to froth at the mouth the moment smacks of feminism) here is what I found. Michael does not blame all men for the misbehaviour of a few. He does say that decent men should be part of the solution, not the whole solution but part. What he is suggesting is just as a friend might drink too much so his/her friends will discourage the drinker from driving for their own sake and for the community's sake. so decent men, of whom there are multitudes, when they see unacceptable behaviour, should tell their misbehaving friends to pull their heads in. Simple really! Unobjectionable I would have thought unless you have amalicious and misogynistic mind.
Posted by fancynancy, Friday, 12 November 2010 5:59:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who want more information about the differences between flirting and sexual harassment simply google the topics on the web.
There are a range of choices and opinions to be had.

Of course no matter what definitions are available there will always be those who either won't comprehend or feel themselves exempt from
any moral obligation to comply.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 12 November 2010 6:10:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Basically in a nutshell, as Suzieonline, Lexi and Fancynancy point out, it is women who decide what is acceptable male behaviour, and what is not acceptable male behaviour.

Often there have been complaints about the oppression, sexism that women experience, yet here it is, that women actually decide what sorts of male behaviour are acceptable or not.

So the oppressed get to decide what types of behaviour by the oppressor is acceptable.

so the powerless oppressed get to choose what sorts of behaviour are acceptable to them.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 12 November 2010 7:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH <"Basically in a nutshell, as Suzieonline, Lexi and Fancynancy point out, it is women who decide what is acceptable male behaviour, and what is not acceptable male behaviour."

No James, most intelligent men know perfectly well what behaviour is acceptable to most women. If a woman does take offence at something said or done at work and decides to take it further, it is the courts who decide in the end. It is up to them to decide if a person has a case or not.

Benk seems to confuse flirting with sexual harassment.
(and yes Houellebecq,, I did make an honest mistake by calling it sexual abuse, wrong topic, same detractors).
Benk can look up the difference (again) online, but let me give you an example:

Boss Basil says (seriously) to his secretary Letitia " If you want that wage rise, you will have to agree to sleep with me?"
= Sexual harassment.

Some women may well laugh at that statement and tell Basil to stick his job, other women will take it further and complain.

Boss Basil(smiling) says to Letitia- "Hey gorgeous, you wanna go out with me sometime?"
She answers "No thanks, I have a boyfriend"
and he says "Ah well, your loss!"
= flirting.

On the other hand, if Basil had then said "Now listen here B####, you are so ugly no one else would want to go out with you!"
= Sexual Harassment.

Get it?
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 12 November 2010 8:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

'A problem like SH cannot be eliminated without the support of men - that is all the article promotes.'

Nope. For a start, it calls for *active* support. It accepts the majority of men don't harass women or encourage SH, but
it wants these men to censure those that do - Out of a sense of responsibility, a responsibility that isn't expected of women.
Perhaps the author thinks male harassers would only respond to censure from other men but if so that portrays a very negative view of men, and is basically plain wrong. He sees it as a 'mens issue' a closed circle of male social pressure.

'Hey guys, if you're not part of the solution...THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM'.
'It's a mens issue'.
ie Responsibility. Men who don't speak up are responsible for the actions of other men,
and women are either not responsible for other men or else it is inferred they always speak up.

'That does not mean women can take a back seat and wait for hand holding.'

No, but you stated the author suggests that women not be afraid to speak out as well.

He blatantly did not.

Show me the quotes. Prove me wrong.

Earlier you said 'Without generalising, the assumption is that women are already anti-sexual harrassment '. (anti-sexual?.. harassment)

That is a lot closer to the mark. The author nowhere suggests women should not be so afraid to speak out,
he suggests women are assumed against SH due to their gender so have no need to prove they don't condone it.
Men, on the other hand are assumed to condone it due to their gender, so must censure other men to prove
they're 'Men of goodwill'.

lexi,

Very Foxy-esque! Steadfastly repeating the same line of how the world should be and
ignoring any nuance or complexity or inconvenient reality.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 12 November 2010 8:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some men here protest just a little too much, methinks.

As Flood suggests, they are part of the problem of sexual harassment, rather than its solution. There's obviously little point in arguing with them, but it's nice to see an article from a male author that obviously hits a raw nerve with the 'usual suspects'.

I think it's an indication that Flood's quite correct in this case.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 12 November 2010 8:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzieonline wrote, "No James, most intelligent men know perfectly well what behaviour is acceptable to most women."

How do intelligent men, know what sort of behaviour is acceptable to most women, it is because they are told, educated, about what sort of behaviour, women find to be acceptable.

Again it comes down to the plain fact, that it is women who decide what sort of behaviour is acceptable or not.

the paradox, though is that the exact same behaviour from a man she is attracted too, maybe seen as flirtation and acceptable, and the man that she finds to be unattractive, the exact same behaviour maybe seen to be offensive and revolting.

the other paradox is the often complained about 'bad boys' and bad boy behaviour that some women seem to be fatally attracted too. Even though these male bahave in unacceptable manners, they still manage to have a pretty reasonable success rate.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi

All that I took from your cop-out of an answer is that you cannot distinguish between flirting and sexual harassment yourself.

Suze

I agree that the first and third examples that you gave are disgraceful and that all decent people should be prepared to say so to the deadbeat in question.

The second example wouldn't get someone hauled before the courts, but I've seen more than a few women act as though such an invitation is as bad as the other incidents. Limits on acceptable behaviour are largely enforced by social pressure, which is why Dr Flood wants people to say more. Since men are expected to speak out against sexual harassment, I hope that you wouldn't mind speaking out against malicious treatment of blokes who have done nothing wrong.

Fancynancy

If social pressure was only ever used to stop serious cases of sexual harassment, none of us would complain. The practice of sometimes judging the innocent testing of the waters (the behaviour that is largely expecte of men) as sexual harassment is an example of unfair treatment of men. Those who defend the practice have no right to accuse others of sexism or of having a malicious mind.
Posted by benk, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH, I suggest you try out a few comments you might like to ask some women at work, and see if your male workmates think you should or shouldn't go ahead with it. Most guys are brought up well enough by their parents to know what is acceptable behaviour at work?

I don't know about the men you know James, but the men I associate with at work have never been accused of sexual harassment by any of the women, and vice versa.
In fact, I don't know anyone who has been accused and convicted of sexual harassment.
Does anyone else here?

Benk <"Since men are expected to speak out against sexual harassment, I hope that you wouldn't mind speaking out against malicious treatment of blokes who have done nothing wrong."

Of course I would Benk. I would stand up for anyone who was wrongfully accused of something they didn't do. I have never been involved in that scenario yet, and hope I never am!
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 12 November 2010 9:48:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suxanonline,
"I don't know anyone who has been accused and convicted of sexual harassment."

I have known several men who were accused of sexual harrasment by women at work. None were found guilty.

One woman complained to the manager of a company when a man called her "love". The man called every woman love, and after that few men in the company would work with the woman.

Another woman compained to the head of a department that a male worker had asked her to have a drink after work. She was put on another shift, but no male would work with her.

I have also been in factories where few men would go to the laboratory or office, which were mainly staffed by women, as they could be accused of sexual harassment.

ETC.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:04:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Vanna, it sounds like the women at your' workplace were bullied?
I have no doubt there are women and men out there who over-react to comments made to them by work-mates, but the act of everyone else then ostracizing them is workplace bullying.

The same people who don't understand bullying when they see it, are often the same ones who don't know or care about sexual harassment.
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:35:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You people just fight cause you need the brake from the norm. Trust me....its understood.

Men come onto woman and the female as in our species.....is the only one that makes the mating rights exclusivity female as she can and will make fault with what she picks.

Who makes up this stuff?

Religion makes man/woman out of animal....Right. Now this is out of whack, because the instinctive norm/naturals have been thrown out of, and all we have is a two way understanding.

It really is hard being human.....but not.

Evolution + what we see...........can only be the answer.

Thank-you

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As James points out, it is women who get to determine what is acceptable behaviour in men. Fair enough, as long as men get to decide what is acceptable behaviour in women. It's only reasonable.

What do you say girls?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 13 November 2010 5:31:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzieonline, "Most guys are brought up well enough by their parents to know what is acceptable behaviour at work?"

Exactly my point,the oppressor, because of the indefinable power and privilege gets educated about what the disadvantaged and oppressed decides is acceptable behaviour, that the oppressor must display.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 13 November 2010 5:40:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stop the blame game. This is how it is. What are you trying to prove by arguing each others' points? Sexual harassment exist, period.

Why are you all arguing with each other? So what? Obviously there are some pretty sick people out there. Less then an hour ago, I had to deal with another sick person. It's a disgrace to humanity, but what are we, or can we do?

This is what we have to accept. The world we live in. It is so hard? With all we have. We have so much. Why can't you just start appreciating. What needs to happen, will happen in due time. It has been proven. How new is this "sexual harrassment"? It didn't even exist before. We live in a better place. Our consciousness has grown yes, obviously. But what is the point of fighting, when we are suppose to work together?
Posted by jinny, Saturday, 13 November 2010 8:13:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suxanonline,

There was the group of female office workers who complained to the manager that a male worker was harassing them. This male worker was a little simple but completely harmless. During his lunch hour he would sometimes buy chocolates, and then leave them at the front counter for the women at the office.

This was deemed sexual harassment by the women at the office and they complained to the manager, and the manager then had to go and tell the male worker not to go to the office unless absolutely necessary. After that, no male worker in the company would go to the office or have anything to do with the women at the office unless absolutely necessary.

The ultimate would be the court case currently occurring where a woman is suing an Australian company for $37 million for alleged sexual harassment at the workplace. This involves being given a hug at a Christmas party and being asked to go to a restaurant.

It is 100% likely that the allegations will be found frivoless by the court and the case thrown out, but the CEO of the company has lost an estimated $2 million in pay because of the allogations, and the company has lost an estimated $100 million because of a decline in share prices.

That is a lot of money, but that type of money would mean nothing to academic feminists harbored by universities that just grab their money from the taxpayer.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 13 November 2010 8:20:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna, research into the bullying behaviour of school girls, found that they used the technique of telling, bad or false stories. Revealing confidences etc.

Now the example you gave of the female office workers accusing a male worker who left chocolates for them of sexual harassement, is an example of this female bullying behaviour.

The aim of female bullying behaviour is to cause psychological and emotional pain, the bullies justified this because the victim either deserved it or was asking for it in some way.

Basically purely innocent behaviour, can be made out to look really bad depending on the language used. I have seen where women do gang up on a poor unsuspecting bloke.

Clarisse Thorn gives some good examples about how when men innocently reveal, it can be and is used against them.
http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/?page=1
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bullying occurs in all sorts of situations by all kinds of people.
However sexual harassment occurs when one employee makes continued,
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, to another employee, against his or her wishes. A box of chocolates would not qualify as sexual harassment.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:35:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH
All those sorts of manipulative bullying behaviours are used by bullies of either gender.

Bullying and SH or any other form of inappropriate behaviour is not limited to men. No-one is saying it is.

If a woman was to constantly grope a male colleage at work and obsessively stalk him with pleas of dates, sex etal, doesn't that employee have a right to some form of protection in the workplace.

Women and men have a right to some peace in the workplace - work is for work.

It is pretty obvious that there are some harmless flirting etc that goes on but for goodness sake we are all adults, we know the difference and a Court, Judge, Mediator should be able to nut it out without too much difficulty even if it just means saying to the alleged harasser "just stay away from X". Simple.

We don't expect men alone to fix the problem, but they have to be a major part of the solution otherwise we are spitting in the wind.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:41:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is precisely the point that is trying to be made. We all have to be part of the solution otherwise the problem will not be eradicated.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:50:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi: << We all have to be part of the solution otherwise the problem will not be eradicated. >>

Yes, that's what I understand to be the central point to Flood's article. Apparently, there's a few chaps here who are incapable of taking that simple message on board - which is of course why they and other men who share their outlook are part of the problem, rather than contributing to its solution.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:14:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C J Morgan,

The article does nothing of the sort. The article tries to portray men as being oppressors of women, and it does this through statements such as" women are sexual objects and men are women’s superiors."

The article does not abide by the anti-discrimination policies of the author's university, and the article does not abide by the scientific method.

The article does abide by feminist theory, which allows the author to remain employed and to receive taxpayer funding through the university that harbors him.

The article is not only an indictment of feminism; the article is also an indictment of the universities that so much support feminist theory, and also harbor individuals such as the author.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 13 November 2010 11:59:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"It is pretty obvious that there are some harmless flirting etc that goes on but for goodness sake we are all adults, we know the difference and a Court, Judge, Mediator should be able to nut it out without too much difficulty even if it just means saying to the alleged harasser "just stay away from X". Simple."

No, not simple at all. Why on Earth should a court be expected to tell him to do anything at all if she's the one claiming offence at something trivial? Why on earth should something like that even be a matter of court action in the absence of an assault, or some form of bullying or threat?

Once again, you're demanding that he pay the price for her feelings, not his own motivations or even his own actions.

Why are her feelings so important?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A <<fifth (of sexual harassment cases) involve male harassers and male targets>>.
Homosexuals represent approximately 1% of the population yet they account for 20% of the sexual harassment cases.
This implies that homosexual men are twenty times more likely to be sexual harassers than heterosexual men.
This trend is consistent with (although not as pronounced as) the Catholic church child sex abuse scandal where 80% of the victims were boys.
The figures suggest that sexual harassment could be reduced by almost 20% if only homosexuals reduced their harassment to the same level as heterosexuals.
How about it, all you homosexual harassers out there.
By refraining from sexually harassing men you have the power to be twenty times more effective than heterosexual men in at least one area of your life.
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 13 November 2010 12:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Making offensive statements on anyone's sexual orientation without giving concrete evidence to back those statements up is certainly a mild form of sexual harassment in that it is a violation of the boundaries and privacy of many people. Their sex life is no one's business.

Equating the label "homosexual" as negative is the same thing as equating feminine qualities as negative.

One of the best ways we can stop these labels as being viewed as abusive is to quit equating them with negative qualities.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 13 November 2010 1:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,
You should be directing your comments to the author.

If you investigate it, every article or paper written by the author has described men in a negative way, and rarely has he every told the full story or presented full information.

He has repeatedly broken the anti-discrimination policy of every university that has ever employed him, and he deals mostly with qualitative or subjective research that is not accepted as a part of the scientific method.

Yet he continues to be paid taxpayer funding.

You could ask “Why is that so”?

You could also ask "Is there any information from a university academic that is reliable?"
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 13 November 2010 2:57:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti
The Courts are only the path taken for serious accusations don't make it out to be the norm. Most of these issues get sorted out in-house.

It is not 'her' feelings or 'his' feelings. Only the feelings of the harassed.

C'mon you are smarter than this. You know the difference between harmless flirting and picking up on social cues as opposed to serious SH behaviour. We don't get anywhere by this endless focus on the detail. Haven't we already moved on from acknowledging the grey areas?
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 13 November 2010 3:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi

"However sexual harassment occurs when one employee makes continued,
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, to another employee, against his or her wishes. A box of chocolates would not qualify as sexual harassment."

I asked for a definition that works "in all cases." Your definition, though workable, doesn't reflect how sexual harassment tends to be defined in the real world.

We have all seen blokes make just one (politely delivered) approach and she reacts as though she is the victim of some terrible injustice, horrified that he would even dare to even talk to her. It is implied that he is harassing her and she quickly gets the support squad to gang-up on him. I would hope that both you and Suze would point out that he was within his rights to do what he did.

On the other hand, we have all seen women act disinterested in guys that they eventually end up with. When men see this, we wonder why we bother being nice. I would also hope that all of us would point out to her that her actions will encourage sexual harassment. You won't be popular, but having principles often comes at a price.

Dr Flood was correct in that others, including men, need to speak up when we see clear cases of sexual harassment. He neglected to mention other parts of the solution. Those of us who are familiar with his work are-not surprised that he was happy enough to talk about those parts of the solution that involve shaming naughty men but failed to discuss those parts of the solution that involve pressuring women to carefully consider the consequences of their actions.
Posted by benk, Saturday, 13 November 2010 5:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the battle of the sexes there is only one rule:
DON'T be an innocent by-stander like Mr Flood.

Only fools of both sexes don't IMPLICITLY understand this.

But at what cost to our shared planet

Perhaps this rendition of the Lennon /McCartney song I am the Walrus sheds light:

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together
See how they run like plumes from a sewer
See how they molly-fly, beaks jet-fuel awry, I'm crying

Sitting on a cornflake
Printing global-thieving dollar bills
Corporation T-shirt, stupid bloody 9/11
Man you've been a naughty CEO
You let your debt grow long

I am the postman
Here are the Harvard men
You are the blogman
Coo coo ka choo, coo coo-ka choo

Mr. Science pliceman sitting.
Pretty little plicemen in a row
See how they lie 'bout their CO2 in the sky
See how they dollar-run, It's dying

The pale blue dot is dying, it's dying, It's dying

Dark matter custard
Dripping from a Constellation's eye
Crabalocker fishwife
Pornographic songstress
Boy, you've been a Roller-coaster girl
You let your knickers down and had your dollar buns

I am the postman
They are the Harvard men
You are the blogman
Coo coo ka choo, coo coo-ka choo

Sitting in an Amazon desert
Waiting for the rain,
If the rain don't come you get a tan
From standing in a wasted lung

I am the postman
Here are the Harvard men
You are the blogman
Coo coo ka choo, coo coo-ka choo

Expert, textpert glass ceiling gropers
Don't you think the lawyers laugh at you?
See how they smile, their wigs in a style
See how they're snide, like a guillotine slide, they're dying

Flying through the Western tower
Elementary penguins singing Quran stigma
Man, you should have seen them kicking
Howard Odum's show

I am the postman
They are the Harvard men
You are the selfish blogman
The letter's in the mail to YOU
Coo coo ka choo, ka coo coo-ka choo
Posted by KAEP, Saturday, 13 November 2010 7:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"It is not 'her' feelings or 'his' feelings. Only the feelings of the harassed. "

Yet the point of the article is that the "harassed" is nearly always female. So my question remains, why are the feelings of the "harassed" so important as to justify a court imposition on the liberty of the accused? Furthemore, who pays the costs of all this? The "harassed" or the "accused" or does the state pick up the tab?

I disagree that this is focussing on silly detail. The fact is that what you appear to support is the proposition that if I say I "feel" harassed, you must change your behaviour to suit me.

I also disagree that social signals are easy to pick up on. while that has always been true, in today's world it's harder than ever, since there are effectively no standard conventions that can be relied upon any more. If the "harassed" says she felt harassed, that's the end of the game and the start of the dramas.

I have to say that I would not employ a female in my business, simply because of the potential for trouble she represents.

I'm a pretty "blokey" bloke. I like coarse humour and I enjoy taking the mickey. I'm not prepared to change those things, but they may well land me in hot water if a female employee was to take offence, so no female employees is the rule.

Great result for feminism.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 14 November 2010 7:32:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

I tend to think the situation is having an effect on women.

There are more and more companies not prepared to employ women, or they have women employed on a temporary basis, so they can easily dismiss them if there is any trouble.

The David Jones case will be a pivital point I feel.

The company has lost a CEO and has lost about $100 million in a decline in company share prices.

The woman is suing the CEO and the board of directors of the company for $37 million.

The woman is 100% likely to loose, as she has almost no evidence that sexual harassment did occur, but the loss to the company to date has been huge.

If she does win, what company will employ women in the future.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:21:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna, the DJs case was settled, with Fraser-Kirk accepting the ridiculous amount of $850,000 because she "felt" harassed by the attentions of her boss. There was no implication that she had been bullied or threats made.

If she had been a brickie who "felt" her arm being torn off by a concrete mixer, she would have been entitled to medical attention and an absolute maximum of $160,000 in Qld - I've not bothered to look at the rest of the states.

As I said earlier, why are her "feelings" so important when it comes to being chatted up, while his "feelings" are so unimportant when it comes to a traumatic amputation?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:43:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,
The case is not completely settled. A private detective is now suing her for unsubstantiated allegations she made about the private detective. After the solicitors and the private detectives take their cut, I think she could be left in debt.

Still, a payout from a company of $850,000 because she "felt" harassed, (with no physical evidence or signs of trauma) would be enough to make many companies highly unwilling to employ women.

I think most companies have enough problems surviving already without having to deal with ghosts, or unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 14 November 2010 9:07:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those still having problems with this topic try the following website:

http://au.reachout.com/find/articles/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace

unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges have no legal bearing.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 14 November 2010 9:22:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi, I checked that link, thanks. Let's look at what they say is sexual harrassment.

"Sexual harassment can include:

* unwelcome touching, grabbing or other physical contact
* comments that have sexual meanings
* asking for sex or sexual favours
* leering and staring
* displaying rude and offensive material, e.g. calendars, cartoons
* sexual gestures and body movement
* sexual jokes and comments
* questions about your sex life
* sex based insults
* criminal offences such as obscene phone calls, indecent exposure and sexual assault."

With the exception of the last one, all of these things are entirely subjectively offensive and what one person finds acceptable, the next may not. they've been a feature of nearly every all-male workplace I've worked in and some where women were present. Law should not be based on subjectivity and it should not pander to the unreasonably precious.

Why are her "feelings" so important?

you say "unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges have no legal bearing."

Which is a cop-out, as you know. Once the claim has been made there will be a lot of trouble caused for everyone. The link is doing as Pelican did and suggesting that he may be subject to coercion from his supervisors, even if no formal complaint is made. It's the same sort of thing that the silly Flood is demanding - she says "he's a bastard" and all the "real men" are meant to step in and bash him.
It's very much the same sort of thing that is applied in DV law and in Family Law - a claim is as effective as a substantiated case if the objective of the accuser is to cause trouble for the accused. There's lots of effort made to get the accused to just accept the accusation without ever challenging it.

Weak and not worthy of respect.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 14 November 2010 9:57:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi

If the law is all that matters, why does Dr Flood want other men to criticise the accused harasser?

All of the actions on Anti's list are only sexual harassment sometimes. At other times, depending on her feelings, they are enough for her to fall in love.

Stealing is always stealing. Murder is always murder. Assault is always assault. Flirting is only sexual harassment sometimes.
Posted by benk, Sunday, 14 November 2010 10:18:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Errr...No Anti, if you are going to comment on my comments at least get it right. I did say that it was up to the complainant to first make a complaint, then the organisation can deal with it via mediation, counselling etc. Look back and see my earlier comment to that effect. The Courts are the most extreme course of action available.

As for the DJ's case, why are you blokes assuming that the claims were bogus? Is it possible that the ex CEO was actually guilty of the claims brought forward by more than one person? Yes the payout was high compared to a person injured at work but the complainant from the beginning took the case to court to highlight the issue of SH.

Your attitude is just the same as those you deride - you are saying that a woman's feelings are unimportant and that men's feelings override any others even if means women just have to put up with overt sexual attention in the workplace.

Clearly there needs to be a meeting of commonsense approaches. I have always worked with blokey blokes and there is a difference between overt SH and workplace jokes. Most blokes, even the blokey ones know where to draw the line because it really isn't that difficult to work out.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 14 November 2010 10:23:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
For a male in the workplace, drawing the line basically means not touching any woman, and having as little communication with women as possible, or all communication has to be stickly work related.

It also means not being in a room with a woman unless someone else is present.

I know of companies where this is now the unofficial policy of male workers in the company, and I also know of men who will not work with women full stop.

The DJ’s case only emphasises what can happen if a male does not follow these policies. The CEO gave a female employee a hug at a Christmass party, and at another time he asked her to go for a drink after work. For this he lost his job and about a $2 million dollars in bonus pay, the company also lost $100 million in share price decline.

So that is "drawing the line", and in a feminist society “drawing the line” also means not employing women to start with, which is what many companies do (unofficially).

The Floods in this world, with their bigotry, mis-information and male denigration have done amazing things for women.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 14 November 2010 12:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanka,<"There are more and more companies not prepared to employ women, or they have women employed on a temporary basis, so they can easily dismiss them if there is any trouble."

Really? Where is your proof of such a statement?

Your comments to Pelican above seem a little paranoid to me.
You and 'the many men' who make sure they aren't alone in a room with a woman at work mustn't have very much self-control surely?
A bit over the top don't you think?

For goodness sake, anyone would think there is a huge conspiracy out there by the rabid feminists to 'get' all men by accusing all and
sundry of sexually harassing women.

If it wasn't such a serious subject, it would be laughable how some of the men on this forum carry on!

Cheers, Su(Z)eonline
(not suX, Vanna... please stop calling me by that name).
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 14 November 2010 4:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna

Lets not go too far over the top. Companies will still employ women, just not Ms Fraser-Kirk. It is plausible that this case involved overt sexual harassment that no-one should defend. An arm up a blouse is more than a hug.
Posted by benk, Sunday, 14 November 2010 5:21:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most workplaces have policies regarding sexual harassment and if in doubt check with your human resources manager or your employer.
A safe workplace environment should be a given for both males and females. However if in doubt all you need do is ask to find out.
Most people however do know where to draw the line
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 14 November 2010 5:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suxanonline,
It is incredible how so many have been feminist trained to automatically think of a male as always being in the wrong.

If a male doesn’t want to work with a female, the feminist training has been that the male can’t exercise self-control. The thinking is not that the female is impossible to work with, or too great a risk to work with.

I’ll tell you of a true situation. A cleaner had accused an office worker of sexually molesting her.

The office worker was interviewed by detectives (including a senior detective) and had DNA samples taken.

In one interview he told the detective that he had prostrate surgery a few moths earlier, and was still recovering and had no interest in sex. When this information was relayed to the accuser, she said that she had made the whole thing up and withdrew charges.

Amazingly, the woman was still employed by the cleaning company, but no other male cleaner would work with her or be in a room with her, and they avoided communication with her. Even the female cleaners wouldn't talk to her. Eventually (or finally) she was sacked because the cleaning company could lose contracts.

For the male office worker and his family, the situation was very traumatic, and he still has a black mark against his name, even though he had been found completely innocent.

For feminism => read money.

Throw enough mud at men, and some may stick, and then it makes it easier to get money from men.

Unfortunately for at least some women, they come off second best, and can actually lose out in the longer term.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 14 November 2010 6:14:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna said: <<For a male in the workplace, drawing the line basically means not touching any woman, and having as little communication with women as possible, or all communication has to be stickly work related.

It also means not being in a room with a woman unless someone else is present.>>

Interesting.

I'm a Muslim and in my workplace I am occassionally required to greet visitors. Some are women, sometimes more senior, sometimes less, and sometimes from outside company. As a Muslim i cannot shake hands (and haven't for several years) or mix when alcohol is being served (i avoid the Christmas party).

I once asked my Shaykh for his advice on how to deal with such situations. His advice was to say Islam intends to avoid all avenues that can LEAD to sexual harrassment, while recognising the hand-shake is, in and of itself, an innocent act and the norm in a Western context.

Vanna, your statement is precisely what Muslims are taught!

Salaams
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that information Grateful.
It sounds like Vanka would be more comfortable living in a Muslim country then.
See you all on another thread.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:38:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzeonline,
I wasn't born a Muslim and i know from first-hand experience just how Aussie blokes can talk and treat women, particularly when young and single with a few beers under their belt. So i understand what Flood refers when he speaks about men "making jokes or comments supportive of harassment and abuse." and of course there is a lot more serious crap that goes down. I've never encountered Muslim men behaving or talking in this way. Everyone has a lot to learn from each other.

salaam
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 14 November 2010 9:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Grateful, I didn't mean to denigrate Muslim men or countries.
I am sure there are good and bad people, and situations, in all countries and religions:)

I guess that the media usually only reports on the bad ones from all groups, because that makes better press!
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 14 November 2010 9:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzeonline
No problems.
We all learn from each other. What you said reminded me of a favourite story from a biography of Rumi which i think conveys great wisdom:

<<Rumi’s love and honor for all religious traditions
was not always popular in his day, and often
provoked criticism from the more dogmatic. A
story is told that one such public challenge came
from a Muslim dignitary, Qonavi, who confronted
Rumi before an audience. “You claim to be at
one with 72 religious sects,” said Qonavi, “but
the Jews cannot agree with the Christians, and the
Christians cannot agree with Muslims. If they
cannot agree with each other, how could you
agree with them all?” To this Rumi answered,
“Yes, you are right, I agree with you too.”>> pvii
http://www.omphaloskepsis.com/ebooks/pdf/discour.pdf
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 14 November 2010 10:21:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Your attitude is just the same as those you deride - you are saying that a woman's feelings are unimportant and that men's feelings override any others even if means women just have to put up with overt sexual attention in the workplace. "

Oh gawd. I'm making the point that it's stupid to place control of a person's mode of expression in the hands of someone else. It's obvious you don't like women being told what to do by men, but you're quite happy for women to tell men how to behave. That's unsustainable as an argument. What is increasingly happening is that normal male modes of expression are being forced out of workplaces, while feminised ways of doing things are being forced into place instead. That may suit some places and some people, but it is highly discriminatory against the men and women who actually like other ways of doing things.

Pelican:"Most blokes, even the blokey ones know where to draw the line because it really isn't that difficult to work out."

Except when it keeps changing. You claim to be broad-minded, but what happens when someone like Nina Funnell or MTR (or pynchme, or Foxy, or Suzeonline for that matter) turns up at work? What a joyful place that would be for the "blokey" blokes, eh?. Why should they have to accommodate her faux sensibilities when they were there first? Why should she not have to put up with their pre-existing workplace culture? She could always go elsewhere if she didn't like it - why MUST they change to suit her just because she's able to whinge more loudly?

I agree with you that there needs to be commonsense and that list from Reach Out is very far from it.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 15 November 2010 7:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Reach Out website simply lists behaviours that have been illegal in Australian workplaces since 1984. Obviously, the men here who rail against the law constitute that minority of gender dinosaurs who perpetuate sexual harassment 25 years after it was made illegal in Australian workplaces.

Fortunately, most men have moved with the times and don't have any problem with not sexually harassing their employees and co-workers, but some of the attitudes expressed here indicate that there is still some way to go. I guess that's why researchers like Flood have to exhort the majority of men to be more active in stamping out remnant sexual harassment where it exists.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 November 2010 8:19:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I guess that's why researchers like Flood have to exhort the majority of men to be more active in stamping out remnant sexual harassment where it exists.'

But CJ, why am I the keeper of antiseptic, but pelican is not? That's what Floods article boils down to. Why is it only men who are enlisted to censure sexual harassment? I think it's pretty old-school to think that men are only influenced by male peers, or that women bare no responsibility for confrontation of undesirable social interaction from men.

This 'mens issue' rubbish asserted by the author perpetuates a closeted dynamic of exclusively male regulation of male societal norms, which lends to men believing it is only other men they ought to be judged by.

Anyway, why should I have to prove I'm 'a man of good will'? Why should I have to act as a missionary spreading an anti-sexual harassment ethos (Or else I'm part of the problem ie responsible for others) while it's good enough for women to sit back and stay silent and have it assumed that they are opposed to sexual harassment?

I think the primary obligation is on the individual to be assertive. I'm nobody's keeper, and it encourages a victim mentality for women to wait for the strong arm of the male moral code to save them.

Thought I see it's something that really appeals to you.

I sincerely hope you get your cheepies from the resultant praise that is bound to be arriving directly.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 15 November 2010 9:56:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C J Morgan,
Still calling other posters names such as “dinosaur”

Not much learnt, and no wonder feminists like you so much.

I have wondered why the Floods in this world rarely mention all the false or frivolous allegations made by women about men.

Such allegations are very numerous, much more numerous than the allegations that are found to be true.

Would it be that the Floods in this world also like to make numerous false or frivolous allegations about men.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 15 November 2010 10:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna and Anti,
Maybe some employers will choose not to employ men to ensure there are no harassers among them - just in case. You cannot always tell a gentleman just at face value. I suspect most people won't go down this path, most employers understand that the vast majority of men and women are possessed of commonsense.

The rest can be dealt with under the SH provisions.

Some of you are making more out of this than needed. Perhaps some of you need a more detailed list of instructions of what is not acceptable but personally I think the grey areas are important because not everyone is the same. (Excepting of course the totally inappropriate behaviours like groping, perpetual sexual attention and stalking etc).

You guys have no idea the guff women had to put up with before SH legislation and what some considered perfectly 'normal' behaviour for the workplace. Fact is work is for work not for sexual matters, if occasionally one leads to the other through mutual consent, fine, but the premise should be an expectation that you get paid to work and not harass other colleagues if they have made it clear certain attentions are not wanted.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 15 November 2010 10:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Perhaps some of you need a more detailed list of instructions of what is not acceptable "

Perhaps some of you need the same thing? Or perhaps, some women need to loosen up a bit and some men need to pull their head in a bit. At present, it's likely that a woman making a harassment claim will set in train a sequence of events out of all proportion to the seriousness of the alleged harasment. The man who is the subject of the claim will be effectively harassed by her making the claim, if it is untrue, while she is unlikely to face any censure for having made an unsubstantiated claim.

It gives women in the workplace a very powerful, almost risk-free weapon if they choose to use it and do so sensibly. Ms Fraser-Kirk erred in trying to turn the whole thing into a publicity stunt and in getting greedy. If she'd taken a modest settlement, she'd have had her revenge by getting rid of the boss and she'd still have had a job to boot.

I'd be much happier with all of these victim-centric laws if there were a bit more balance in the form of consequences for misuse of the law.

I still wouldn't like this particular set of laws - they're simply too subjectively based and open to abuse.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 15 November 2010 11:48:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,
I would agree with that.

I personally am aware of someone who made a false allegation of sexual harrasement (possibly hoping to make money from it).

They eventually told the police that they had been lying, but the police took no action.

They continued to be employed by the company, ntil eventually no other employee would work with them, and then they were sacked.

Definitely the police should have taken action when they found the person had given them false information. They didn’t because the police are highly biased against males, which is well known by feminists and women.

In the case of Flood, he has broken the anti-discrimination policy of his university in this article and in many others he has written, but continues to be employed by the university at taxpayer’sexpense.

I would think he continues to be employed, because the universities are also highly biased, which is well known by feminists and women.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 15 November 2010 12:19:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Or perhaps, some women need to loosen up a bit and some men need to pull their head in a bit."

Well that is probably the most even-handed comment you have made so far.

Nobody should live in fear of going to work especially when the choice to change jobs is not possible for various reasons.

False allegations are just like any other false allegations and should be treated as such. However, lack of proof is not the same of false allegations in any intrusion on anothre person.

vanna
What about all the claims of SH that are legitimate and of a serious nature. Do we just ignore those and go back to the dark ages when women just had to put up with the nonsense just because of one false allegation you are aware of. How many false allegations are there compared to legitimate allegations?
Posted by pelican, Monday, 15 November 2010 1:30:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
Women can finally be welcommed to the real, unprotected world.

If a woman makes a false or exagerated claim, they are sacked, or they can be taken to court, fined and litigated against.

That is fair, considering the amount of cost and trauma that many of these false alegations from women create for men.

If an academic at a university makes a false or exagerated claim about men, they can be sacked, and there is the posibility that they can be litigated against also, (NB the education system is posibbly the last remaining area where litigation does not take place, but with universities now talking about significantly increasing their fees, I'm sure litigation of universities will begin if they don't start and improve).

So, if a woman makes false or exagerated claims, she puts up with the consequences.

Something never mentioned by the Michael Floods, in their feminist male denigration.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 15 November 2010 1:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Effects of sexual harassment can vary depending on the individual and as long as people work together with some having power over others, there is the potential for sexual harassment. It's as much about the abuse of power as it is about sex and as we know in most workplaces some people have more power than others. We've seen how the recent high-profile sexual harassment cases have shown that this form of discrimination is extremely costly and reputation-ruining for organisations having the potential to be fought out in the courts
under a number of different pieces of law. Evidence of course is required for any case to be taken in seriously in a court of law. The
law is not interested in who is right or wrong - it is simply the law,
and decisions are not made on heresay. Proof is required.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 15 November 2010 5:37:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Secrets of the single sex workplace.
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20041023-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/06_jun03mag/warrior_07.htm

Darren Blacksmith, documents behaviour that is not really discussed in the public domain. It might be whispered over a beer or two, but rarely does it receive any publicity.

The book Lipstick Feminism also supports much of what Blacksmith writes about.

Feminists like Michael Flood have a severe degree of myopic tunnel vision when anything that conflicts with a preset belief system and it is either ignored or rationalized away. Such rationalizations may take the form of 'more women experience', 'the research does not support' or 'it affects more women than men' or 'more women are hurt by' or 'women suffer a greater degree'.

There is an extreme failure of feminists, to acknowledge the binary nature of human relationships. A refusal to drill down past easily observable behaviours to the covert. Motivations maybe hidden or subconscious, where without detailed examination the true nature and motivations in human interaction remain hidden.

Typically in human relationships, psychological defense mechanisms such as projection and transference are often at play.(we all use these to some degree)

When we consider that something like 70% of human communication is non-verbal. The field is ripe for exploitation and manipulation as non-verbal signals can easily be denied and occur often below the level of conscious awareness.

Another tactic depends on the types of words used, using words with a negative meaning, makes a interaction negative, where as using words with positive meanings, show the interaction in a positive fashion.

Early feminist chose to paint marriage in a negative perspective, and used words like oppression, servitude, slavery, rather than words like co-operation, cohesion, loving, warm, caring, partnership that painted a much more positive picture of marriage.

Research published in New Scientist magazine that proved extremely unpopular 'Women are natural born flirts' showed that when women first met men they even flirted with men that they found to be unattractive.

Such research is part of the binary system and interaction of human relationships.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 15 November 2010 8:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican

The problem isn't false allegations, so much as allegations that are made after trivial incidents. In our society, it is easier to attack the male "villian", than to tell the teary female to toughen up. Too many people still want to heroically rescue the helpless female.

CJ

Every time that I read your posts, I imagine one of those pick-up artists, who always tells a women what she wants to hear. Blokes like you are the reason that these laws are needed.
Posted by benk, Monday, 15 November 2010 9:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi says: "Evidence of course is required for any case to be taken in seriously in a court of law. The law is not interested in who is right or wrong - it is simply the law, and decisions are not made on heresay. Proof is required."

That is completely contrary to the way I understand the laws operate in this so called democratic country, particular laws involving female allegations ie domestic violence, rape and sexual assault, family law. There is perpetual pressure from Flood's mob on politicians to change laws in order to weaken court processes designed to enable respondents to reasonably defend themselves.

Heresay will do very nicely to get a father separated from his children. There is no need for the respondent to have attended court for this to happen. In fact I am more than familiar with a case where, according to the transcript of the hearing, a court's examiner in chief asked the complainant to explain to the court her allegations and the magistrate interrupted saying she has signed a statement and therefore there was no need to do so.

Had the court really been interested in the truth it would have discovered that there was documentation on government files that showed the allegations which were the basis of her complainant were determined by a competent authority (both police and child welfare) to be "unsubstantiated".

I recommend to all John Hirst's piece in a Quarterly Essay No 17, titled "Kangaroo Court". Since that was written things have only gotten progressively worse.
Posted by Roscop, Monday, 15 November 2010 9:34:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice sentiments but you sort of lost me with one of the opening lines: "Most men don’t harass, and most don’t condone it"

In my experience the opposite is true. More so in working class environments than professional ones but it cuts accross the board
Posted by JE, Monday, 15 November 2010 10:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human interactions are like a binary system, and like I wrote before that there is a distinct resistance of feminists to look at or examine how female human behaviour influences this binary system.

An article published in todays paper "Women are there own worst enemies"
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/women-their-own-worst-frenemies-20101116-17vij.html

<"There's something uniquely monstrous about the female herd," said US author Kelly Valen, who surveyed more than 3000 women for the book. "Many women told me men can hurt their body, but it's women who scour their souls.">
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 4:41:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we are all seeking from any of these discussions, whether it be child custody, family law, violence, sexual harrassment, rape, child abuse is - the truth. That the 'truth' will out.

Getting to the truth of allegations is not always easy and there is no fullproof system that can determine truths when there exist two opposing claims. How do you devise a system that will seek out the truth and act accordingly.

I don't have the answer, but making it easier for abusers to perpetuate their misery on others is equally as bad a system that, as some argue, make it easier for false allegations to be presented.

Other than using torture techniques to get to the truth of a matter, what does one suggest? I believe lie detector equipment is not always accurate - so what does one do as a legislator? I don't believe one can ever get the balance right on this one. Too hard one way or the other and the system will make it easier for abusers or increase the number of false or exaggerated allegations. Human nature is not perfect but I believe most allegations are not made maliciously regardless of gender politics. Those that are should be dealt with appropriately.

What to do? It is a dilemma.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 8:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican I'm undecided about lie detector's. I get the impression that when used by a skilled operator they are very hard for most people to beat and probably a lot better than what we do now.

It might be the cynic in me but I doubt that many pollies would want them in widespread use, imagine the awkwardness of being asked to take an interview about broken election promises (or dodgy costings) with one hooked up. Wouldn't the rest of us love to see that from time to time.

On this particular topic it continues to stick in my mind that there is an underlying assumption that the blokes who still do sexual harassment etc care about the opinions of the rest of us. I suspect that for most of them the closest they come to caring is being able to boast that the behavior works sometimes. Censure from men who don't do it is more likely to promote contempt than change.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 9:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, agree RObert. The lie detector was tongue in cheek but really when it comes to people, either one party is outright lying and knows it, or both parties actually think they are right and believe their perception of events is factually true.

Human nature is funny like that. Most men know, when they go too far and most women know when they are being 'precious'. Most of the angst on this issue is about theoreticals but in reality SH has greatly reduced and for that we should be thankful.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 18 November 2010 3:02:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 20
  7. 21
  8. 22
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy