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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.">