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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?"