Gutless pussy-whipped 'men' need to stand up for themselves.

Taking hypocritical exploitation to another level !

Nothing meritorious about this extreme over the top hyperventilated hyperbole and risible rubbish. Horse feathers and bird's fur.
Alan B.

#.. Gutless pussy-whipped 'men' need to stand up for themselves….#

Or, a world ruled by the “Alphabet Mafia”.

Exactly the example of the internal pressure bringing Israel to its knees, and will ultimately lose them the current war. Democrats!

Dream on Diver.
Alan B.

Typical Arndt. Misrepresentation, selective quotes out of context, and an implied message that sexual harassment is not really a serious problem and employers shouldn’t be expected to do much about it.

For example:

“Jenkins and her team create a fiction of workplaces as cesspits of groping men intent on keeping women in their lowly place.”

Jenkins and her team actually examined many sources of evidence and research that point to workplace sexual harassment being a significant issue for both men and women. They did not seek to minimise the problem of male victims; read in context, the comments Arndt quoted (which incidentally are summaries of independent research not the conclusions of the report’s authors) express concern that harassment of men may be under-reported and taken less seriously that harassment of women. And Arndt conveniently fails to mention that most complaints of harassment by men are about male perpetrators.

Arndt attempts to downplay the problem by suggesting that most harassment is “mainly low-grade”. Think about that. Are we to tolerate leering and sexually intrusive questions because they are “low-grade”? And behaviour she deems “more serious” – unwanted touching, for example - affected about one in five employees. Is that ok?

Arndt takes offence that the report says that “criminal standards of proof are not appropriate”. But that is standard for workplace misconduct. In criminal law, an allegation must be proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. In civil matters, the standard is “the balance of probabilities “or “reasonable satisfaction”. That still means that an accused harasser is entitled to a fair hearing based on evidence. But the bar should not be set higher for sexual harassment than other workplace misconduct such as bullying.

Arndt says ‘the report doesn't mention fairness as a priority but instead calls for "prioritising the rights, needs and wants of victims"’. While the report does not specifically call fairness a “priority” it does call it “important” – for example: “The Commission agrees that it is important to balance the rights of victims and alleged harassers and uphold the law. This is important in terms of fairness and justice …”

Praise to the perfect woman!

http://youtu.be/yh-JCjOraTs?si=4dGrL9SaGhNLmFKz

Feminist Commissariat's in the workplace will increase the cost of labour and prices and women are seemingly less able to absorb them. This is likely to become a new source of self caused tyranny for women. Hopefully they are eventually wise enough to see their error and correct their tactics- sadly the history of feminism seems to be one of blame.

Canem Malum

Many forms of employee protection add to employers’ costs – health and safety, measures to prevent bullying, protections against unfair discrimination etc. That is no reason to remove these protections. There may come a point at which the costs of such measures exceed the benefits, but given the extent of harassment identified in the research Arndt quotes, I’d suggest we’re nowhere near that point yet.

The primary reason why women are more affected by inflation than men is that they earn less than men. The solution to that is more feminism in the workplace, not less.

Another excellently researched provocative article by Bettina. One that provoked angst from the usual suspects. But now that Bettina has baked a delicious feminist killer cake for us all to savor, from a surprising source, their ABC, comes the free icing!! Read on...

ABC.net.au
Anthony Albanese faces questions on whether he planned with Brittany Higgins to pursue Coalition

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-08/albanese-questioned-on-involvement-with-brittany-higgins-claim/102453872?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

With all the disgraceful leftist BS revealed by Bettina, now we find out ALP was working in cohorts with that exact same femo narrative all along to discredit the coalition. Involving none other than our little Missy Higgins. The pieces of the fantasy rape puzzle begin to fall into place. A lot of coincidences, better described as a genuine conspiracy. It's all making sense about the femo psychotic delusions that they're all sweet innocent victims of sex-crazed men at schools and workplaces.

You gotta love it when the evidence comes out and smacks them in the mouth like a cold mullet.

BTW, Bettina, Max says hello!