After years of being silent, women coming out many years later, accusing bosses and fellow employees of sexual harassment. Will two income family wives and single women employment opportunities decline?

Will women’s imaginations fuelled by poor memories turn mere office work place flirting into sexual harassment?

Old employer concerns about dual sex work places, decide future employment opportunities for women and probable hiring males with known male harassing women behaviours?

whether male or female we see a victim mentality today. Some males and some females will fabricate and lie in order to hold on to jobs they would normally disqualify themselves from. I have no doubt some women have prostituted themselves to get promotions and now cry wolf. On the other hand many men (especially Trump haters) have shown themselves to be pigs. I am not sure what is more vile, the Weistens or the vile militant man hating feminist. Pretty corrupt world we live in. Under secularism with no moral compass it can only get more filfthy

Can working women hold on to employment by accusing male workers of harassment?

Yes.

Hi Is Mise,

But it could be extremely difficult for them, in a multitude of ways, for a long time, in the face of bureaucratic inertia and power structures.

Joe

The control environment is set from the top. Also, behaviour generalises.

Where for example, a grub can repeatedly offend against children and over years, as occurred in the case of Jimmy Saville and the BBC, it is very likely indeed that there is other corruption occurring, such as the (very common) conversion of the organisations' assets to private use and another, favouritism in appointment, promotions and conditions of service.

It suits the tabloid media and some predictable elements to portray sexual harassment as a male abuse of power against women. However that trivialises what is really going on and ensures that while there is the occasional scalp for that particular offence, the far greater problem of abuse of position and power to the detriment of the organisation and shareholders (taking the public as the shareholders in public bodies) continues.

There is nothing like having an effective audit committee (with outside appointments), a program including comprehensive audits and publication of audit reports to deter offenders and to ensure that robust and effective controls are in place and working.

It is the absence of these and particularly an environment where audit is belittled and seen as the enemy by management that is the red flag that something nasty is going on. An audit program would be noticeably incomplete if the organisation's cub-contractor and outsourced functions are not included.

Last sentence, should be 'sub contractor'. An example might be a private company or individual providing comment or programs to a TV channel, where it should be held to the same charter of conduct as the channel's staff.

Recently a number of “end of year 12 HSC examination celebration seen as male schoolies”, during a drinking binge, destroyed a high rise apartment, posting pictures on the web, shows a male teenager head butting a wall.
News reader stated the event shows what happens when teenagers get together.

My often accusation school teaches facts, distracting youth from individual intelligent Homo-Sapien thought. Youthful minds being traumatised by forced learning irrelevant facts, students self-medicating using over the top fun experiences, alcohol removes self-restraints.

Recent selection of elderly males being accused of sexually harassing women many years ago, If accusations are true, I place much of the responsibility on school mental stress self-medication, teenagers under increased mental stress, react to lowest intelligent Neanderthal behaviours, teenagers trying to laugh at each other’s behaviours. Self-driven to be highly motivated achievers driven by minimum of 13 years of school classroom teaching, attempting to score points as though enjoying teenager group challengers.

Science of Stupid often shows teenagers poor judgements, at one time, statement mentioned, poorly thought out behaviours blamed on teenagers edging each other on.

My added suggestion is school curriculum fact learning has little to do with social conversational learning instinctive reaction personality. Students focused on school learning and aggressive contact sports, many adults have failed to develop creative conversational instinct, entertainment news and media have little to offer in social conversation. Sports enthusiasm motivation removes a need for humans to talk to people. Such poor behaviours made worse in lower letter graded students. Low letter graded young students whom don’t want to attend schooling, repressively hate not only school classrooms, associations with attending classrooms anger infects remaining students within classrooms. Prolonged anger impulsion to lash out at some person or thing. Male driven family violence derived from 13 years of forced school education.

Male aggression somewhat related to female primary school teachers and mothers forcing male teenagers to do school home work, encouraging good grades, the lack of respect and/or caring whether women have a say in Neanderthal sexual flirting. Women having demanded teenage males to perform tasks, teenagers saying no, when no was never a choice. As abused by women male teenagers, as grown adults, women saying “no” merely reminds males of women's abuse on teenage males force compliance, adult males to finally get their own way and/or get revenge on women.

As many teenagers having left school say “I’m never going to do ‘that’ again”, that being learning. Male teenagers having to perform tasks set out by women, finally get to ignore adult female demands.

Returning to limited conversational skills:

My often mentioned long time casual friend whom suffered from depression since his marriage breakup in 1990. One main reason his wife was unhappy with her husband, was he’d never partake in conversation, constantly walking away from his wife’s need to communicate. Prier to 1990, she told me he wouldn’t even poke his head up during television commercials to say something, I say he was not wanting to begin any conversations.

Now, when visiting him, trying to start discussions, soon sees him needing to leave for an appointment, I suspect in order to get me to leave, as he feels no self-gratifying need to talk.

As he was an ex CBA bank branch manager, an “A” letter grade high school student, he fears being court making incorrect statements, he doesn’t believe in government/media conspiracies. Highly competitive to win, therefore everything he doesn’t know, doesn’t believe, doesn’t exist.

Another male casual acquaintance, who is unemployed, attempts to turn most everything into fun. Aged 40 years plus, owns and rides a skateboard; devoiced with a single child dependent.

School education mental stress punishes human incentive to think clear ideas, physical movement distracts any need to think, things are black and white awesome or BS.

US college student housing, student houses have a reputation of male students sexually abusing female students, reported several times by PBS Newshour.

Placing competitive mentally stressed males in groups, needing to have medicating stimulating fun, to be believed as part of the group else be bullied by performing dominate student teenagers. Neanderthal behaviours create conversations similar to Donald Trump recorded bus statements about grabbing pussy.

Pushed by parents particularly mothers, sexually abusing women can be satisfying revenge, emotionally enjoyed by all male group thought teenagers, reinforcing future adult behaviours.

Presented by media female accusations against men as it happens statements, I have never heard media introduce psychologists expressing reasons why males have such obvious bad behaviours, Neanderthal emotional decision making beliefs prompting sexual abuse, will never be exposed for what fuels male sexual abuses on women.

Media are partly guilty for not introducing psychologist analysts similar to the above.

When media don’t provide above theories, reporting as it happens news, advertising behaviour choices, society moves closer to “Idiocracy” movie behaviours.

Donald Trump proposed tax cuts, leaving government to increase US treasury’ bond debt. Minus accusations of cash kickbacks, 1850s to mid 1870s New York state politician Boss Tweed did much the same, issuing bonds to attract money into New York state/city treasury, spending spree, increasing business activities, businesses providing overpriced quoted kickback cash poor services, to provide money for Boss Tweed political supporters, business leaders becoming rich, an era wealthy business men were called Robber Barons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed

Monday November 27, The Drum between 17 to 19 minutes into The Drum’s discussions, a guest stated 48% of Americans believe America has “a shadow power”. Remaining host and guests were laughing at guest’s US American survey disputing media news as manipulative lies. Apollo moon landings came into discussion, if by asking a person whether they believe men never walked on the moon provides conspiracy theorist people’s conspiracy beliefs are laughable.

Moon landing scene when landing module blasts off from the moon’s surface using an explosive charge rather than rocket power. A sudden launch G-force movement would kill astronauts. Gravity has nothing to do with sudden G-force movements. A mere sudden explosion shown seen sending 15,000 pound weight Apollo landing modules upwards, is a complete impossible fantasy.

Astronauts walking on the moon’s 125C daylight temperature moon surface temperatures for hours at a time, without cooling space-suits. Wearing space-suits on earth for any lengthy period, insulation quality suits prevent body heat from dissipating into earth’s atmosphere. No atmosphere moon prevents air-conditioning cooling effectiveness. Dad education and bad media relevance to human knowledge deprives human memories from realising bad/fake science.

Once 1969 and following Apollo missions, media presented moon landings as real events, thereafter establishment media are stuck with maintaining lies.

The Drum host practically leaped over the table to intimidate the guest whom was indicating 48% of Americans believes in “a shadow power”, attempting to block any further accusations against media lies.

Media news and entertainment programs have a common theme, theme being all: actors; politicians; interviewed guests; murder dramatised stories… all persons are talking about themselves and/or talking about a third party.

Politician’s foreign citizen scandals are opportunities for politicians to be talking about themselves.

Old men at the end of their careers, sexual abuse scandals provides opportunities for women to talk about themselves. Burke’s Backyard’s female producer crying on ABC 7.30 report.
In all the information, information provides readers and listeners, particularly women, emotional grief self-programming. I theorise many women will begin to imagine long ago sexual abuse that may not have happened, and/or turn innocent male flirting into sexual abuse.

Opposite sex relationship arguments will begin, followed by increasing marriage separations. More people having ended relationships will rely on social security payments.

I know a woman who told her unemployed second husband to go without telling him why, ending the marriage, based on a first marriage aged 14 year old daughter accusing the second husband of spying on her while she was in the shower through a frosty bathroom glass window, merely because he was seen moving around the window.
Several years latter, I heard through gossip her third property owning husband accuses her of intentionally getting pregnant so he had to marry her.

Together with poor verbal communication skills and dissatisfied relationships, more women will end up losing their home, many ending homeless.

Male employers and hiring management will hire fewer female employees in fear of female employees accusing male employees of harassing various female employees. Existing female employees could be fired on fake reasons, or transferred to distant locations, receiving reduced wages without having accused any males. Two income families unable to service loans, selling homes before homes are forcibly foreclosed.

I have to suggest, establishment are intentionally creating relationship tension causing relationship breakups at a time property valuations are high... increasing property tax turnover.

Noticeable media tittles incorporating “oo” words, myself having been told in 1999 “oo” symbolising BooBs, double “oo” word tittles: Good Kill 2014 movie; 300 Spartans, where history records numbers more like 7,000 Spartans; 1970s The Good Life; post 2000, The Good Wife; The Good Fight; The Good Doctor; news boob implant scandal stories; past frequent news breast cancer screening stories; Google; Yahoo; the word food… 1999 Apocalypse Now scare spoken about previously, Life Matters quest speaker was using frequently shown symbols: circles; Xs; pentagrams; 3 dots on Simpsons Mr Burns forehead; “oo” in word warning messages without people knowing messages were being expressed, that something bad was going to happen similar to religions spooking listeners of a soon to come Apocalypse, Jesus second coming. Filling Monday and Tuesday morning Life Matters listeners with information which if remaining humans could want to care, too Neanderthal to care, which could be used to inspire doubt against media provided anecdotal confidence trusting information propaganda.

Life Matters guest speaker saying to Life Matters listeners in mid 1999, “we won’t mess you around because we know you know too much”, while warning of world banks crashing, taking every bank 1999 depositors savings, leaving indebted people bankrupt.

Remaining media program hosts whom may have been aware of the media scam, were not warning their own listeners a scam was taking place.

Through years 2000 to I assume 2004, 2004 property price boom ended, radio stations advertising that “many people believe in Jesus second coming”, meaning bible Revelations Apocalypse is coming. Spooking scammed listeners having sold property and holding cash out of banks from placing cash in banks to buy property before property prices peeked.

To inform readers whom haven’t read previous readings:
DOW Industrial was in: July 1999, 11,400; October 30, 1999 7,200; January 4, 2000 11,700… which during my Google search cannot be verified. The July to October crash was used to convince property owners to quickly sell already market low priced property before late October as suggested by Life Matters 1999 guest speaker “when world banks will be declared insolvent”.

As women sign Hollywood contracts stating willingness to do nude sex scenes in order to become actresses, men sign similar contracts to perform being accused of abusive sexual harassers at the end of working careers. Actors/actresses’ private lives are the property of Hollywood movie producer establishment financiers.

Is there a world government behind the scenes “snake on the tree of good and evil” Garden Of Eden, Genesis, controlling: media propaganda; wars; economies; money printing bank credits... Doing the same as centuries of the Catholic Church were doing before capitalism became the dominate money circulating religion? My opinion is yes... getting away with lies, having control over how children are badly educated, traumatising human memories, conditioning humans into repressing Homo-Sapien thought fears in favour of quick simple memory beliefs, relieving Neanderthal behaving humans from continued traumatising thought. Too lazy, too traumatised to question years of propaganda, which causes fear of being wrong, fears of worrying similar to fears of getting examination questions wrong, Neanderthal humans constantly wanting to feel intelligent, more intelligent than every other student, stimuli rewards, to self-medicate years of school learning tortures.

steve101

101 rants

Most women I know would never accuse male workers of
sexual harassment. They would just leave their place
of employment. Because simply put - the stakes are
so high. The negative impacts on careers and
reputation, potential job loss or discipline are
realities. The stress, time, effort, frustration, and
often the financial cost take a tremendous toll.

Establishing the basis for a complaint is often a
difficult and a lengthy process and the embarrassment
and emotions attached and evidence - can undermine even
the strongest individual.

Therefore I do admire the women that have the tenacity
to go through this very unpleasant process. And, I
can't help but wonder why there is such a concern by
some males about false allegations of sexual harassment
(or any other forms of harassment)
when so very few formal complaint
investigations turn out to be false?

Steve101…

Many years ago, a wise (and wealthy) man wrote a book. The book was titled” how to win friends and influence people”. That person was Dale Carnegie.

Part of that book was devoted to effective conversation. One of the golden rules of conversation said Dale, to be effective, listen for at least 50% of the time, and talk for the balance.

This book is widely available from most book stores today. Not bad for a book written way back in 1936.

//And, I
can't help but wonder why there is such a concern by
some males about false allegations of sexual harassment
(or any other forms of harassment)
when so very few formal complaint
investigations turn out to be false?//

Because due process is not always followed, and a mere allegation can sometimes be sufficient grounds for termination of employment, regardless of the substance of that allegation.

Dear Toni,

Very few people get sacked because of "mere allegations".
Especially when it involves high powerful people who
bring in mega bucks for the organisation. Take the cases
of Eddie Mcguire and Don Burke. There were heaps of
allegations concerning both men yet both managed to
survive and thrive. Eddie McGuire is still around and
sitting in his "hot seat". And the women who dared to
complain - where are they?

'Very few people get sacked because of "mere allegations"'

Appalling naivety or weasel words? Sexual harassment is weaponised and quite deliberately. Political correctness ensures that the mere suggestion, a whiff, of SH and character, career, job and marriage are threatened. The stain is never removed.

"Male-bashing, heterosexual-bashing, has become a characteristic within much of contemporary feminism. And sexual harassment laws have become the main political vehicle for the expression of heterosexual-bashing.

Lin Farley's pioneering work on sexual harassment, Sexual Shakedown: The Sexual Harassment of Women on the Job, appeared in 1978. Within its pages, she chronicled appalling and blatant instances of gender discrimination. She also acknowledged the self-conscious manner in which some women used sex in order to advance themselves in the workplace. From this starting point, militant feminists argued that women should be included in the protection offered by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of secondary characteristics such as race. This legislation, in conjunction with Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act (1972), prohibited "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, imposed on the basis of sex, by an employee or agent of a recipient of federal funds..."(p.18)

That was the view of sexual harassment in the '70s. In the '90s, the issue has evolved to the totalitarian point that a 6 year-old boy in North Carolina was recently suspended from his first-grade classroom for kissing a female co-student on the cheek. Patai considers such extremes to be the result of "the construction of a social problem on a national scale." She eloquently presents the dangers and destructive power of legally denying heterosexuality. Such an attempt not only flies in the face of biology, but threatens the underlying legal fabric upon which individual rights rest."

contd..

continued,

"Consider one example: in the university system (and many would argue in the legal system as well), when a charge of sexual harassment is leveled, the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. The accused is guilty until proven innocent. Sometimes the accusations are based on nothing more than politely questioning a feminist position. In one case, a markedly over-weight professor responded to a taunt shouted-out in class by a student who commented on the extreme 'size' of his chest: he observed that she had no such problem. As a result of the witch hunt that followed, the professor committed suicide. The university's main concern seemed to be that his death would discourage other similarly abused women from "speaking out."

Heterophobia has the refreshing charm of realizing that such incidents mean we are already living in a dystopian future gone mad. To the movement's shame, it is a feminist world. To the movement's credit, there are voice such as that of Patai's who are speaking sanity to the madness. And she speaks in feminist terms by unmasking the anti-woman assumptions of sexual harassment, e.g. women are not able to compete successfully with men on an even playing field: we are so weak and emotionally fragile as to require government protection in our social and professional interactions.

Heterophobia is a well-reasoned and well-structured book that is a pleasure to read. It is broken into three sections: The Making of a Social Problem; Typifying Tales; and, The Feminist Turn Against Men. My favorite is 'Typifying Tales' because, there, Patai gives voice to the unstated side of sexual harassment. Namely, the horrifying human toll it has taken on those who have been accused, including female professors such as author Valerie Jenness.

*Patai begins and ends with a haunting question: will current sexual harassment theory and policy create a better or worse society? Her answer is clear. Current sexual harassment policies create only conflict and dysfunction. Her answer is also convincing."
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/articles/heterophobia.html

*Professor Daphne Patai, UMass Amherst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

//Very few people get sacked because of "mere allegations".//

Perhaps. I've never seen any statistics, so it is hard for me to comment on frequency. But I know it does happen, because it has happened to me.

//Especially when it involves high powerful people who
bring in mega bucks for the organisation.//

Yeah, I wasn't one of those people. I was an apprentice chef, in a run-of-mill pub kitchen.

//Take the cases
of Eddie Mcguire and Don Burke.//

Well we could do that, but neither of us really know that much about the facts of those cases. Whereas I am extremely familiar with the facts of Toni Lavis' case.

As I said, I was an apprentice chef in a pub kitchen. I took a fancy to one of the waitresses and asked her out. At work. She said no.

Now, to my way of thinking that should have been the end of the story. Boy meets girl, boy likes girl, girl doesn't like boy that way, boy asks, girl says no, boy feels dissapointed but gets over it. An ancient tale, older than history itself, and one that will surely repeat itself long into the future.

But the story did not end there. She took exception to the fact that I asked her out in the workplace, and reported me for sexual harassment to the hotel manager, who fired me post haste. There was no investigation, I was denied natural justice and not given a chance to present my side of the argument

Being older and wiser, I recognise that the workplace may not be the best place to ask women out. But it should be noted that as an apprentice, I held no power or authority. When somebody in a position of power asks out a colleague, then that puts a different spin on things: the person further down the pecking order might feel pressured to say yes for the sake of their career. But that was not the case here.

Apprentices, under NSW labour laws, are not protected by unfair dismissal legislation. I sought advice from my union, and from the NSW State Training Authority, but I really didn't have any options. In my case, the allegation was sufficient grounds for sacking.

I realise that this is a fairly specific case: most people aren't apprentices, and thus operate under different rules. And I reckon most women wouldn't be offended by a fella asking them out even if they weren't interested, they'd just politely decline and leave it at that. And I know it's just one anecdote, and more data is required to establish a trend.

But it isn't a fiction. And it hasn't put me off feminism.

Dear Toni,

I am so sorry to hear that you were treated so unfairly.
Of course each case is different and we should allow
for individual differences. And you're right. Most
females that I know would have simply said no if they
weren't interested and left it at that.

Dear Toni,

Women are being murdered/abused every week.
There are plenty of examples on the web
about sexual harassment cases in the workplace.
One famous one that comes to mind was the
case where the CEO for David Jones was sued
by a former female employee who claimed that
the company turned a blind eye to this man's
behaviour. The case was finally settled out of
court. We now have Don Burke and the alegations
against him are piling up. Again, there's plenty
of information on the web about this matter,
with quite a few women coming forward now.

What does seem incredible as Sandra Sully points
out in her article in the Sydney Morning Herald
last year is the fact that EVERY story written
about violence (or sexual abuse) against women
brings out cue's like - "Feminist propaganda",
"Leftist, social engineering", "what about men",
"she deserved it because she was drunk/flirting/..."
"She needs to toughen up if she wants to play with
the boys". And the list goes on.

Perhaps, if enough women do stand up and speak out
then things might change. For us all. After all
abuse of any kind is not fair to any of us - male or
female. And, we need to join forces to stop it.
Because it hurts us all. But we need male support in
order to change anything.

Hi Toni,

I suppose the more power a bloke has in the workplace, compare to a young woman's, the more he might be tempted to use it. One might have to wait for the woman to make the first preliminary move, a bit of flirting here, a secret smile there, maybe a touch on the arm. Wait, and it might come :). It can be beautiful.

I'm in a singing group, and I was thinking of doing Richard Tauber's 'Girls Were Made to Love and Kiss' for our break-up party, but I'll have to be very careful. What do you reckon, Foxy ? Maybe something a bit more subtle ? Maybe Bononcini's 'Per la Gloria D'Adorarvi' ? Pavarotti did it so well. But I'm bound to forget the words.

Cheers,

Joe

The regressive for decades have told us how harmless pornography is. Now women are being abused everywhere. Very slow learners or else very deceitful. Many of the Trump hating actors in Hollywood showing their true colours.

Dear Foxy,

Or maybe 'Angels Guard Thee' as sung by Sir John McCormack, and Sir Kenneth McKellar. A truly beautiful song. Have a listen on Youtube.

Love,

Joe

I guess the entertainment industry is something else. However while there may be the occasional problem person, male or female encountered anywhere in life, grotty behaviour has always been given short shrift in workplaces with responsible, principled, leadership - which is not uncommon. Where the leadership is 'off' the mark there are other problems as well, viability of the business for instance, so move!

"Looking for love? Try the office! Relationships that begin in the workplace most likely to result in marriage

Couples who met at work were most likely to marry
Meeting through friends also resulted in long term love
By contrast, those who met at the pub tended to have flings
Short term romances were also likely for those meeting on holiday

Those who meet after locking eyes over the water cooler are more likely to enjoy long lasting love, new research has revealed.

Despite discouragement from companies and colleagues, office romances are more likely end in marriage than relationships that start in any other way - even meeting through friends.

By contrast, relationships begun in a nightclub or pub almost always end in either a fling or a one-night stand."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2437181/Relationships-begin-workplace-likely-result-marriage-new-study-reveals.html#comments

The Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI) is intended to be a growth industry for some and the main beneficiary of that would be the empire building Australian Human Rights Commission.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/chapter-4-nature-sexual-harassment-australian-workplaces-sexual-harassment-serious

Back to more outrageous 'statistics'(sic) and the disgraceful sloppy 'science'(sic) of feminists. Paid for by the exasperated Aussie taxpayer.

Just wait for the faux 'Progressive' SJWs and the Gravy Train to take advantage of any incoming Labor administration in Canberra, the Budget blow-outs and new taxes, for example the death duties that the innumerate Greens have been spruiking for years and the CGT on the main residence that Labor is eyeing.

Dear Joe,

There are many romantic ballads and we all have our
favourites. Andre Rieu has made a career out of
them and so have many others. And of course there are
many workplace relationships that have developed into
marriages. We're not talking about any of these. Or of
men behaving decently.

What we're talking about here is the trivialisation
of abuse and violence against women, and the culture
that perpetuates it. It is not good enough to brush
aside lewd, demeaning, inappropriate, comments and suggestions
as simply - "banter" or "blokes being blokes".

Not when - language becomes the weaponry of words that
trivialises abuse and violence against women, and a
culture that perpetuates it.

Violence against women sadly encompasses more than women
being murdered every week. It's much more than countless
acts of repeated physical and sexual abuse. And needs to be
taken seriously not trivialised or excused.

cont'd ...

Dearest Foxy,

I certainly didn't mean to trivialise the abuse of power against women across our society. I certainly apologise if I may have done so.

Respects,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'm glad to learn that you did not mean it.

In Australia, there is NO 'trivialisation of abuse and violence against women', nor 'a culture that perpetuates it'. There is NO 'rape culture' either. There are laws and codes of workplace conduct. Then there is the scathing political correctness.

In the West there is a double standard though. Where for instance a celebrity lesbian can ogle and pass public comments about a young women's bust and it is apparently OK for her to do that and to use the target of her lust to express her sexuality. All in front of her partner too, which ordinarily if it were a white heterosexual male as the offender, give rise to a host of other criticisms relating to abuse of power, patriarchy and so on.

https://www.maxim.com/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-katy-perry-boobs-2017-10

To help those who do not know how to copy and paste into a browser,

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-katy-perry-boobs-2017-10

Nice charlies, shame about the 'music'.

Australia has one of the highest rates of
reported sexual assault in the world:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/07/17/sexual-assault-how-common-it-australia

Hundreds of claims are lodged each year.

Now here's more on Don Burke:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/celebrities-gone-bad/can-i-lick-your-back-the-allegations-against-don-burke/news-story/adea300bdd3890276a10aeaf2227a365c

And here's the famous David Jones CEO scandal:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/37m-sexbullying-case-david-jones-turned-blind-eye-claims-employee-20100802-113b0.html

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo regarding the Don Burke link.

Here it is again:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/celebrities-gone-bad/can-i-lick-your-back-the-allegations-against-don-burke/news-story/adea300bd3890276a10aeaf2227a365c

Even if it is forgotten that you are looking through a prism of 2017 and the allegations against Don Burke are accepted at face value (Burke denies the allegations), what you two examples demonstrate is how seriously in the present day the law, employers and the public view any alleged sexual harassment at work and the very serious consequences for any offender and the organisation involved.

Now, what about this? {lift the eye patch]
"In the West there is a double standard though. Where for instance a celebrity lesbian can ogle and pass public comments about a young women's bust and it is apparently OK for her to do that and to use the target of her lust to express her sexuality. All in front of her partner too, which ordinarily if it were a white heterosexual male as the offender, give rise to a host of other criticisms relating to abuse of power, patriarchy and so on."

https://www.maxim.com/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-katy-perry-boobs-2017-10

'reported sexual assaults' and the UN'

A red herring. And to mix metaphors, garbage in and garbage out.

Foxy's left feminist orthodoxy that demonises white Australian men through fudged 'statistics' (sic) and sloppy 'research' has been dispelled numerous times before on this forum. It is all about millions of dollars of taxpayers money being spent on feminist publicity and propaganda campaigns. With very little of that money ever reaching the alcohol and drug affected and the Aborigines where the incidence of violence is prevalent.

http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/media-resources/videos/talking-australias-anti-male-culture/

Last sentence should be, "With very little of that money ever reaching the alcohol and drug affected and the Aborigines where the violence is prevalent".

I can't understand why someone who has spoken out about
a female's right to say no to anal sex and carried on
about this issue so strongly on various posts in the
past should now be in denial about sexual harassment
of women taking place when there is so much evidence
available as to what is really going on in this country.
Was all this previous "outrage" in defense of women
false? One can't help but wonder about the credibility
of this poster.Or anything that he posts. He appears to follow
whatever opinion is in fashion. (or thinks it is).
Sad really.

Here's another link on the subject:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/survey-reveals-how-widespread-sexual-harassment-is-in-australia-20171107-gzgvpz.html

As for Don Burke's denials? Well, As Mandy-Rice Davies once
said - "He would, wouldn't he!"

Foxy,

Your are as usual trying to divert the thread. Because the game is up for the ARHC that is seen to be empire building and relying on very broad definitions and sloppy feminist research, and of course the obvious diversion of the millions of taxpayers dollars into propaganda campaigns and hollow shams. The money doesn't reach the Aboriginals, alcohol and drug-affected, or the culturally driven imports who feature strongly in violence against women, against one another and society in fact, gender is often irrelevant.

I don'y usually respond to forum bait and I realise some here like to drag people into the muddy end of the swamp. But on this occasion the issue is important and should be covered so here goes.

As the forum's No1 advocate for Gays and concentrating almost exclusively on male homosexual rights as you have over many years - one of your main themes - of course you could be expected to be proselytising for the normalising of anal sex and for diminishing the risks for women, and scoffing at their distaste and resistance to it.

However there are many such as myself who have drawn attention to increasing concerns from medical authorities and others about the number of girls and young women (mature women too!) who are being manipulated by strong emotional blackmail and bullied into sex acts, particularly anal sex, that they do not invite, do not want and serves NO good for their bodies and mental and emotional welfare

The risks extend from the leaky bum, which no girl or young woman would want, to a range of potentially serious effects, STIs and some life threatening. The boys and men who are putting their risky, often bare-back (they may slip that condom off) thrill-seeking before the welfare and informed consent of their victims are encouraged and supported by the normalisation of such behaviour, anal sex particularly, in pornography and in movies, by Hollywood.

I have said before that it is up to parents, mothers again, and the trusted girlfriends to advise girls and young women of the life-changing risks of anal sex especially, and also of the risks inherent to having any sexual relations with a male who indulges in such risk sex. So serious are the risks that the requirements for informed consent should rely on, mandate, that anyone who has previously had anal sex with a male must inform their intended partner, their target, PRIOR.

Now, what about that double standard?
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-katy-perry-boobs-2017-10

and what about Bettina Arndt's comments? Here,
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/media-resources/videos/talking-australias-anti-male-culture/

Then you might address the very broad definitions of 'sexual harassment'.

leoj,

Please give examples of where I have done what you accuse
me of doing. I am sick and tired of your consistent
accusations and your stalking me on this forum. I have
never advocated anal sex - as a matter of fact I have
made it quite clear that sex is a private matter and
the way that people have sex should have nothing to do with
being judged regarding same sex marriage - as you and others
seemed to think. You were the ones that were diverting from
the issues at that time.
Now the issue under discussion is
about sexual harassment of women in the workforce.
Again you attempt to divert this issue by ignoring the facts being presented.
This is your method of operating on this forum. Well - that's
your problem not mine.
As far as the issue of harassment goes -

"Bullies BEWARE
Decent men CARE!"

Oh, for goodness sakes :(

Here, have a go at this it is a discussion forum,

What about that double standard?
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-katy-perry-boobs-2017-10

and what about Bettina Arndt's comments? Here,
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/media-resources/videos/talking-australias-anti-male-culture/

Then you might address the very broad definitions of 'sexual harassment'.

leoj,

So what you're saying is that because some women
may make inappropriate jokes and another female
"sex therapist" voices an opinion on a male talk-show
that makes it all right for Australian men to
behave badly?

How about you read the links I provided
earlier including national surveys that reveal just
how widespread sexual harassment is in Australia.
Perhaps then we could have an intelligent discussion.
Until then, I've got better things to do with my time.

Cheers.

"So what you're saying is that because some women may make inappropriate jokes and another female "sex therapist" voices an opinion on a male talk-show that makes it all right for Australian men to behave badly?"

Come in spinner. You know I don't mean that.

That is why women reject the feminists who are so offensively anti-male.

Would you be protesting against MILO? Jessica Rowe already gave him the feminists' welcome,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pds9ytbPsU

Koch too,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/koch-tries-to-skewer-milo-uneven-contest-results/news-story/f092ed568b1025b5e29de7d145b2da80

leoj,

If you didn't mean it - why quote it?

As for women rejecting feminists who are offensively
anti-male? How many feminists do you know?

I don't know any in my female circle of
friends or colleagues who would fit into that
category. Perhaps you need to either broaden your
circle of female acquaintances or get out more often
into the real world. Feminism and being "anti-male"
don't necessarily go together. And the females who
are feminists and "anti-male" are usually rather
disturbed people. As are males who are "anti-female".

BTW: To be anti-sexual harassment in the workforce
does not mean you are "anti-male". But simply
anti inappropriate behaviour.

But perhaps you
associate being male with bad behaviour. I've heard
that this is acceptable to some males - as the
countless acts of reported physical and sexual abuse
show.

It's also part of the culture in which some
males were brought up and currently live. There are
still males (usually older ones from a different time
zone) that regard sexual harassment of females as
"feminist propaganda" "Leftist social engineering"
and "what about men", and the list of excuses goes on.

I would like to think the public condemnation of
sexual harassment signals the end of all the angry
comments and excuses being made by some men.
But it probably won't - only with education, and a
change in our culture starting with parents teaching
their children respect at home - with the younger generations
will that ever be possible to achieve.

Foxy, "If you don't mean it why quote it?"

I quote your strawman to identify and dispel it. Unabashed, you then attribute the quoted words, YOUR strawman, to me!

The Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI) already sucks millions from the trough of taxpayers' money and for nothing. The $millions are converted into feminist propaganda, tawdry political stunts and empire building for the Human Rights Commission.

Is it any wonder MILO is easily able to take the 'half bald'(sic) feminist to task?
Would you be protesting against MILO?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pds9ytbPsU

Then along comes 'male feminist'(sic) Koch too,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/koch-tries-to-skewer-milo-uneven-contest-results/news-story/f092ed568b1025b5e29de7d145b2da80

MILO is right about the left leaning media and about feminists, isn't he? Particularly where he quotes the numbers of women who do not want to be labelled and associated with the modern male hating feminists.

leoj,

Thank You for proving my points so brilliantly
with your continued references to the "Sexual
Harassment Industry," "Feminist propaganda,"
and "male-hating feminists".

Nothing more needs to be said. Your posts speak
volumes.

Cheers.

It is impossible to deny, isn't it?

The Sexual Harassment Industry siphons $millions annually from the trough of taxpayers' money. It goes to the feminist gravy train, propaganda and political stunts.

- NOT to the grassroots Indigenous and alcohol and drug affected where the problems are occurring.

- And NOT to those 'Struggle Streets' that emerge in the angst columns again now that the Gay marriage agenda is achieved.

MILO is right about the left leaning media and about feminists, isn't he? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pds9ytbPsU

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/koch-tries-to-skewer-milo-uneven-contest-results/news-story/f092ed568b1025b5e29de7d145b2da80

leoj,

Last year the Australian Federal Police released a report
showing that 46% of women employees and 20% of men had been
sexual harassed in the workplace in the past five years.

It was a "boys club" said the then sex discrimination
commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.

This year - a report on sexual harassment and assault at
Australian Universities found that 51% of students had been
sexually harassed in 2016 whether on or off campus.

Yes. this is impossible to deny.
However I'm sure that you will undoubtedly continue to
do so with your usual fervour.

I shall leave you to it.

So what?

This is using the very same tactic of hysteria and fuss that is employed over and over again by the educated middle class elite to get their noses into that trough of taxpayers' money.

There is a perfectly good system of robust and effective management controls available to all CEOs, all senior managers, public and private sector, to monitor, deter and treat sexual harassment or any other problematic behaviours in the workplace. And there are regulations with teeth to back it all up.

I refer you and anyone else who might be interested back to my post on page 1, here,
leoj, Wednesday, 29 November 2017 8:02:07 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8043&page=1

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for a Sexual Harassment Industry with the well-padded AHRC and ors with their snouts in the trough of taxpayers' money and sucking out millions pa, that SHOULD be going to grassroots support and action, for example to Indigenous where the problems are allegedly worst.

and this year a ' report' by feminist whose funding must keep coming found 90% of men with bad attitudes towards woman.

While we are on the subject, the public services, the quangos and contractors to government, federal, State and local government have had 'sexual harassment contact officers, 'Shockos', for thirty years and more.

And there have been scores, hundreds, of EEO officers and high level feminists in all public bodies and even represented in the Dept of PM&C, where the PM had a role. Similarly all large and many smaller business have been obliged to allocate staff and budgets to all manner of feminist policies.

The taxpayer is entitled to know where all of the millions went. Because the AHRC and ors, you too, are saying that NOTHING has been gained.

Yet those hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars could have gone into hospitals, to those 'Struggle Streets' and to actually achieving something more than middle class Emily's Listers hot air in knees-ups at the Sheraton and other nice places.

Honestly, is it any wonder that women don't want to be associated with the self-indulgent, always-entitled, spendthrift, man-hating feminists?

leoj,

You ignore all the
available evidence even though there is so much
available - as to why our laws don't work and
how Australia is failing
sexual harassment victims. There are testimonies from the
Australian Federal Police, and other authorities. And all
you can do is say - "So What?"

Not "So What?"

But "So Sad!

the funniest thing I have read lately is how an actress called Sandra Bullock parades herself naked in front of millions and then gets upset when she is asked about it by an interviewer.

leoj,

BTW - what's with your persistent references to -
and I quote:

"middle-class Emily's Listers hot air in knees-ups
at the Sheraton and other nice places"

And -

"self-indulgent, always entitled, spendthrift man-hating
feminists..."

Is this some kind of a fantasy of yours?

I mean what normal decent man talks like that?

And who of us really know people like that?

If that's the way you really think - then perhaps the
problem is not them - but you!

Dear runner,

Yes, there are many actors and celebrities
who'll do whatever it takes for publicity
that's for sure. But that's a separate issue
and does not justify violence and abuse.
I'm sure you'll agree.

What would it be now? Over forty years since the start of the really big Whitlam spends on feminism, the open cheques, but Sweet Fanny Adams, nil, achieved! In fact everything has gone rapidly backwards according to the leftists themselves!, since the leftists started meddling in social reengineering.

' But that's a separate issue
and does not justify violence and abuse.
I'm sure you'll agree.'

no Foxy especially like the abc depicting Abbott having sex with a dog or Deveny making the statemnt that Bindy Irwin at the age of 13 deserved to be raped. Both vile but little concern shown by those on the left for such depravity.

Dear runner,

Therein lies the problem in our culture that some
people don't condemn vile behaviour. These attitudes need
to change.

The American Jackson Katz had this to say:

We talk about how many women were raped last year,
not about how many men raped women. We talk about how
many girls in a school district were harassed last year,
not about how many boys harassed girls. We talk about how
many teenage girls... got pregnant last year,
rather then how many men and boys impregnated teenage girls.

So you can see how the use of the passive voice has a
political effect. It shifts the focus off of men and boys
and onto girls and women. Even the term "violence against
women" is problematic. It's a passive construction; there's
no active agent in the sentence. It's a bad thing that
happens to women, but when you look at the term "violence against
women" nobody is doing it to them. It just happens to them ...
Men aren't even a part of it.

Dear runner,

A few corrections.

The cartoon sketch that appeared on "The Roast"
depicted Tony Abbott's mum having sex with a
solar panel. It was done as political satire.

At the same time "At Home With Julia" showed
the then PM pictured naked under the Australian
flag with her partner.

Both of which incidents raised quite a few eyebrows
and got criticisms.

The Chaser Team depicted Chris Kenny of The Australian
having sex with a dog. Its contents were rated PG and
were pitched at a younger demographic.

Catherine Deveny's comments about Bindi Irwin dealt
with the sexualisation of young women in the media.
However, she got the sack as a result. Hopefully she's
learned her lesson.

Foxy, "Therein lies the problem in our culture that some people don't condemn vile behaviour"

You would be referring to that rowdy, violent demonstration in Melbourne. Why are the protesters so frightened of what Milo has to say that they try to censor him?

BTW, how is that comment on the double standard going? And what about the hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars, the open cheque books, wasted on feminist experts on sexual harassment and other feminist policies over the forty years since the Whitlam Labor government? What is there to show for it?

The Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI) really sucks. It will be 'All aboard the Gravy Train' if Shorten's lot that were left over from the Gillard government ever get into power.

leoj,

I can no longer take you or your comments seriously.

Your support of Milo Yiannopoulos came as quite a
shock to me. It truly opened my eyes as to who I
was dealing with on this forum. But it suddenly
made perfect sense.

Of course you would support someone who is anti-women,
especially feminists, and the Left.

A British
gay provocateur, a showman,
who sees nothing wrong with pedophilia and the
sexual abuse of children, or violence and abuse of women.
A man who is a smirking void
who's booked to say something outrages while batting
his eyelashes - like Princess Diana. An empty vessel
who is able to thrive unchecked by turning hate speech
into show business.

The vanity, the cynicism, the bullying, the hate-speech,
the harassment, the financial skullduggery - are all
public knowledge. And, as the New York Times stated -
his supporters think he cares for them. He doesn't.
All he cares about is the publicity and the money.
But as long as he keeps on attacking the Left - he will
have his dim-witted followers. The man is a monster.
Basically he's a nut-job. He's even been banned from twitter
(and that's not easy to do).

He's been allowed into this country and people can judge him
for themselves. Just as he's allowed to speak - so protesters
are allowed to protest. Most rational people will not take this
man seriously. Those that will - obviously are pathologically
sick.

Yeah Milo and Peter Singer both are appalling.

Foxy,

That was quite a spray. But there is no evidence to support it, is there? See here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pds9ytbPsU

And there is evidence of bias in the Oz media to poison the well against him, knobble him, but to no avail with Milo rising above it and courageously answering his critics. See here,

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/koch-tries-to-skewer-milo-uneven-contest-results/news-story/f092ed568b1025b5e29de7d145b2da80

Even under grossly unfair and deliberate gish gallop assault from the awful Oz media hacks who didn't want him to get a word in edgeways (he is right about the tabloid media!), he still raised valid thinking points.

Why are you so worried about hims?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/susie-obrien-yiannopoulos-should-not-have-been-allowed-in-australia-writes-susie-obrien/news-story/73bc47e750de4b59e91eb99507b77cb9

People are right to protest. It's not about stopping free
speech, it's about stopping the kind of speech that stirs
up hatred, violence, and intolerance.

Foxy, I have now familiarised myself with this, previously unknown to me guy, and I could not find justification for any of these negative accusations that are being leveled at him. Which when one considers my stance on queers, I was the most surprised. No, I like the guy. He is very articulate, knows his facts and presents them well. What I did find is that his detractors left a bit to be desired. If people are against him because they don't like 'him', that I can understand, but, if it has to do with what he is saying then I think they need to stand back and review what he is saying. Hate speech? Really? NO I don't see it. Some may choose to call it hate speech to help their cause because they are clutching at straws.To quote some things that the qoran preaches which are clearly against any laws, morals and ethics of any decent society, is not insighting hatred but exposing it. The true followers of Islam are brainwashed like the followers of all the other so called 'religions'. As far as I am concerned they are all 'cults' and should be done away with. I have yet to hear him say something I can pick him up on. He is one of the good guys.