Forgetting (for the sake of brevity) the arguments regarding the nuances of sexual harrassment, the author makes a good argument.

Most men would, I am sure, admonish overt sexual harrassment that was clearly causing distress. Not all men are compelled to silence or tittering through peer pressure or lack of courage to stand up for a woman (or a man for that matter) who is experiencing harrassment of some sort. Yes, a few men might perceive sexual harrassment as some sort of game or a masculine right (and rite) ie. something to giggle about behind the bike shed, but most don't so men are already taking part in reducing sexual harrassment. SH has absolutely reduced over the years and much of it driven by the support of men.

As the author said, most men are not harrassers - most are rational and can tell the difference. Most men I have worked with would rein in another male who stepped beyond the boundaries of commonsense as regards SH. Most men possess the gumption to step up to the plate.

A quick look at the author’s workplace found that the Employment Equity and Diversity Department had three staff members, all of whom were female.

That’s about the right workplace culture for a feminist, male-hate university.

It also has the following policy regards language:
 a. promote the use of non-discriminatory language and presentation in all University of Wollongong documents and publications;
 b. promote the use of non-discriminatory teaching practice in classrooms;
 c. develop guidelines and regulations for students' use of non-discriminatory language in their written work and oral presentations;
 d. establish a procedure for settling complaints and grievances about discriminatory language, presentation, and teaching practices; and
 e. inform all staff of their responsibilities under the policy and of the existence of a complaints procedure; and distribute suitable educational material to assist staff in compliance.
http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058706.html

Now, judging by the authors liberal use of sterotyping statements such as “women are sexual objects and men are women’s superiors”, the author’s article would not abide by this policy.

Judging by the use of completely exaggerated statements such as “women endure a daily ‘dripping tap’ of unwelcome sexual behaviour” the article would not pass any type of scientific scrutiny.

Although much loved by bigoted, discriminatory feminists, a question is “How can the author be employed at taxpayer’s expense when the author does not abide by the policies of his workplace.

Is he still employed at that workplace because he is much loved by bigoted, discriminatory feminists?

Sexual harassment will only be eliminated when women take part in ending it.

Suzieonline demonstrate aptly that it all comes down to one woman's opinion as too what is defined as sexual harassement.

<A very truthful and insightful article Michael, but only real men are going to actually agree with you and work towards lowering the awful harassment of women in the workplace and elsewhere.

The men these sort of ideas should be aimed at are not going to listen to such 'feminist propaganda', because they think sexual harassment is the usual way of 'chatting women up'.

These men are not bright enough to know the difference.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10:03:01 AM
>

So by definition only real men agree with Suzie and they aren't harassers and if men disagree with her, she then defines these people as not being real men.

In reality these laws once formed to protect women, in the workplace, quickly escaped the original definition, that of being boss/worker and it being repeated unwelcomed behaviour.

Now it applies to all male /female interactions where any behaviour by a male that is unwelcomed by a female is viewed as being harassement.

The only trouble is what is acceptable behaviour to one woman, is not necessarily welcomed by another. As such it quickly became a method of trying to manipulate and bring men to heel, with their tails between their legs.

Suze,

'Real men will make a stand against sexual harassment, and THAT sort of strong behaviour is the real turn-on for the women around them.'

So it's the patriarchal white nights then. Option B.

BTW, what do 'real women' do?

I agree all people should say something, but our society is based around minding your own business and.... English-ness.

So why does the author decide it's only up to men to do this? Has he proven that women in social situations are more likely make a stand against sexual harassment? Nope, he asserts that it's more the *responsibility* of men than it is of women to make a stand against sexual harassment.

I don't agree. A more empowering message would be to tell women not to put up with it rather than tell them to expect a white night to intervene.

But no, if a 50kg accountant with a centre part wont cop a beating from a 120kg gorilla for the honour of 'being a man' then there is something wrong with men? When the woman could have yelled stop it and stood up for herself with the protection of a societal taboo about hitting women.

we are unique,

What world are you living in? How many women have you seen punched in the face? It's well proven men are by far more often assaulted than women. A guy can get punched in the head for spilling a drink at the pub. The vast vast majority of men will not hit a woman. Men on the other hand...

pelican,

'Most men possess the gumption to step up to the plate.'
Do women possess the 'gumption'? Why should men be braver than women? Is it mens job to protect women?

For a bunch of feminists there is an amazing propensity here to define women as helpless victims needing 'real men' to come to their rescue. Obviously then I won't now be considered sexist when I state that a real woman knows how to cook a good meal for her man and keeps a clean and tidy house.

Michael Flood backs me up girls...

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1650

'Male-on-male violence is the most common form of public violence. In the assaults at licensed premises reported in the Sydney study, 80 per cent of victims were male and 88 per cent of incidents involved an alleged offender who was male.'

And, here's the money shot...

'As long as a culture of aggression and *male honour* persists, violence will continue to happen'

So, your appeals to 'male honour', ie 'real men', the white knight (yes I cant believe my previous spelling either) are part of the cause of male on male violence.

'Male on male violence will only be eliminated when women take part in ending it.'

'Hey girls, if you're not part of the solution...'