'Women have led the way in challenging sexual harassment. It’s time for men to step up and join them.'

I don't really think so. A few women have. A few men have. The rest of society either isn't affected by it or minds their own business and doesn't make a scene when they see it occurring.

Basically what the whole article is saying is men hold more responsibility than women for the actions of other men. I don't agree, I think the person being harassed is much more responsible for speaking up about their own feelings of being harassed (which may not even be appreciated by the harasser as others have said) than random bystanders that happen to be male.

If the article focussed on all random bystanders having more responsibility for putting a bully in their place, well, I could accept it. But I can only think of 2 reasons why Flood would concentrate on men...

a) All men are guilty by virtue of their gender
b) A Paternalistic and patriarchal and patronising view of men being the white night defenders of women. Strange from a feminist.

Fact is women even have more scope for standing up to harassers as they're not as likely to be punched in the head as men.

anti,

I would love to see Floods reaction to Jack Marx's critique of his White Ribbon campaign...

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/cross_fingers_day/

According to the authors, it’s a “new study”, its recency giving it traction in these info-bulimic times. Which is not to say it has to be actually “new” at all, but simply a regurgitation of existing data packaged in a new box. An Assault On Our Future, the document supporting White Ribbon Day, was itself such a report - not a fresh “survey” at all, as was suggested by the media alarm, but merely an essay in which the author referenced work compiled by others, some of which dated back to the early 90s, those reports themselves being “studies” of other reports and trends from even earlier times, many of the “children” referred to in the “new” data now probably having children themselves, the attitudes attributed to the youth of today having been extracted long ago.

......

Thus a reference to a previous report that references a previous study will become a constituent part of a legitimate “new report”, the burdon of methodology removed from the back of the new “researcher”. There is plenty of fodder out there for this sort of folly. Of course, conspicuously absent from the “new report” will be references to previous reports that refute the aims of Cross Fingers Day. The report will thus be not unlike a genuine survey in which answers that confound the researcher’s already predetermined findings are ignored. That’s not a report at all, and any reporting upon it is closer to advertising that journalism.

Using statistics (real or imagined) gives the element of authenticity to one's opinions. However making unreasonable generalisations about either gender makes it appear that one's arguing on an emotional level, not a mature intelligent one.

For example instead of saying, "Collingwood players are rough hoodlums" a more effective approach would be a subtle hint that the players often use physical force to overcome the opposition.

It does not take long to discover that we all have a streak of prejudice within us which, at times, seems a compulsion. While we all
like to think of ourselves as tolerant persons, even passionate in our belief that we all are equal, it is apparent that we all have a continuing obligation to work on our attitudes. It's the height of
arrogance to believe that we are superior to others, yet this attitude is hard to eradicate.

Our aim should always be to behave with respect towards others, and to encourage this in all people.

Many years ago, students at primary school had to undertake reading comprehension. I suggest Vanna, and some others, that you need some remedial lessons in this art or else you are maliciously misreading the text. I am always amazed at the contempt for women demonstrated on OLO.

Great article Michael.

Dear Suz

interesting point you make. Before I was a Christian, and in my 'misguided youth' I was at a party where a bunch of Air Force blokes were present and a few local 'chicks'. But there was a bit of a chick shortage and there was one chatting with me who caught the eye of a bloke who ooozed "I am God's gift to women" (in his own estimation I mean).. he approached were we were sitting, took her by the hand, (as if I didn't exist) and DRAGGED her off with him, and put the hard word on her.

Stunned, I really didn't do anything... just figured she would do the right thing and sort him out. To my 'very very' gloating satisfaction, after a few minutes she returned.. alone...and we resumed out conversation. He made a bit more of an effort, later, but gave up eventually.

He would be a prime candidate for the type of male you described.
Looking back... I'm glad I didn't physically confront the bloke, because that would have indicated I had no faith in her.

Had he tried to take her anywhere against her will, I would have stepped in. I was able to see him mouthing off to her and her sweet smile of 'no thanks' after he grabbed her, so it didn't come to that.

In the end we went back to her place and had a great chat. Glad it didn't turn into more because her brother rocked in unannounced at about 1.00am :)after which..I went back to Base.

PS. (Suz).. that kind of character is pretty much beyond redemption on the issue of how they treat women unless they experience an awful personal tragedy in my view.

So while it remains true that sexual harasment won't end until blokes wake up.. .I can only say (for the author) "Remarkable grasp of the obvious"

I suppose the only thing I can add is that it's up to we others to reign in with advice such people.. seldom though do they listen to anything above their navel.