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

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!

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

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.

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.

'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.