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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?