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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.