Sunday Times: "Extreme feminists" have used moderate feminism as a Trojan horse

[Unwind]

www.dylan.org.uk/fruitbat_freedom.html

supposedly published in today's Sunday Times

Evans gives his version of an internal, confidential, HR matter and then witters on about some straw man extreme feminism

he must have good connections to get that lot of tripe published

here is a less partisan summary of the fruit bat story:
www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/gene-kerrigan-old-prejudices-rear-head-in-batsex-row-2191181.html

also collecting data on an individual and not communicating discomfort and then making a string of complaints is also a form of harassment in itself - its not harassment just because you feel harassed if there is no intent - if I talk to a cycle courier am I flirting or is it harassment - I can see it as flirting so I'm not harassing - he can feel it as harassment, which doesn't make my intention change. If I know I'm making him uncomfortable and I keep doing it to tease him, and my intention is still flirting, where is the boundary between clumsy flirting and harassement?

Your knowledge of his discomfort is the boundary. If his job demanded that he deliver to your house 40 hrs a week that exacerbates it.

Seriously, Heroine, you must know this stuff. Everyone does.

Are you a man Heroine?

Because seriously, most women would be absolutely mortified to know that their "light flirting" was being received with distaste by a male colleague. Most women don't have such a strongly developed sense of entitlement, that they would even want to carry on with light flirting. And most women don't believe they have the right to flirt with someone, who has made it absolutely clear that they would rather not be flirted with by them.

Why would you think you had the right to "tease" someone who is in a working relatinship with you and can't escape from your presence because s/he is at work with you?

What an odd thing to want to do.

yes, but I don't agree with it all - there is a worrying trend of giving all the power to people who feel that they have been upset by someone behaving legitimately - I have had someone threaten me with disciplinary because when they messed up something that was really important to me and to my department, I called them to resolve it, and when I was being nice and communicative they were just fobbing me off. when i said, 'look I've had enough, this was your screw-up and your responsibility and so its your job to sort it out and this is what i need you to do' I had an emain saying that i had been bullying and harassing and abusive and accused her team of not doing their job when they had' (they hadn't actually!) She claimed that she would report me for harassing behaviour.

I wrote back and said that i denied any intention to harass, that i was clear and direct because the situation demanded it, but if she felt that I had harassed her, I would urge her to formalise her complaint as quickly as possible - (she didn't) HOWEVER you can see how this can be used as a tool to shut someone up, to not deal with their complaint, to make someone feel wary of raising an issue or being friendly none of which are good or appropriate outcomes.

As it turns out had she made a complaint, I would have breached a dignity policy because I'd criticised her and she didn't like it!!!!

These kind of ideas are just too pussy-footy for me - I much prefer the collaboarative 'sometimes you're going to upset people, sometimes people are going to be upset by you, but deal with the emotions afterward get the job done first.

oh honestly I'm not that prissy about whether or not someone is going to recieve it well before i've said something! that just leads to shrew-like fear of conversation (Englishness??)

Can't argue with anything you said in your last post Herone, but what has that got to do with this bat-fellatio case?

In this instance, the woman was being harrassed. I think you need to be able to stand back and distance yourself from your own negative experience of someone using harrassment as a STFU weapon, and being able to recognise that harassment is a real event sometimes, as it was in this case, and it needs to be dealt with. People being offensive and bullying and getting away with it on the basis that other people should jsut deal with it, is far more common than frivolous cases of harassment being brough.

I have no fear whatsoever of conversation.

But I also don't think I've got the right to make someone feel uncomfortable in their place of work, where they can't escape my presence. I've never found that being considerate and respectful of other people's feelings, has been a bar to conversation.

I'm sorry but work by its nature isnt going to always be about being comfortable and nice to everyone

But I don't have the right to harass anyone at work.

You seem to imagine you do Heroine.

Are you a man?

Damn - I had a big post typed out and it vanished. It was eloquent, articulate and would have settled this topic once and for all.
Spilt milk and all that.

All I wanted to say is - getting cross with someone at work, as a one off, is nowhere near the same as sustained sexual harassment by someone you can't get away from. For one thing any sort of sexual anything is not legitimate in the workplace. It may be welcomed sure, but it's definitely not an intrinsic part of academicia, or cycle-couriering, or insurance underwriting or whatever. So if a person does flirt (let's say flirt for now), they should be aware that they are the ones putting a toe over the line and be very very quick to step smartly back if there's any hint it's not reciprocated. Continuing to behave in this way when the other person is discomfitted and trapped, is definitely harassment.

I salute your patience Wukter.

I have lost mine, am off to bed now. Good night.

wow HB do you really think all men feel they have the right to attack women at work? I was warned that Mumsnet had a share of that kind of anger - but I didn't believe it until now - are you really that angry with all men?

Who said 'attack'?

Why don't you engage with what has actually been said? There's been loads of posts saying harassment is bad,mmm'kay. Do they give you pause for thought, at all?

What that bat-fellatio man did was flat-out wrong, wasn't it, Heroine.

No Heroine and nowhere have I said that.

You are using "angry wimmin" stereotypes in order to avoid engaging with the substance of this debate.

You still haven't addressed the issue I have asked you directly about at least twice now, about the context of this bat paper - IE that the incident happened as part of an ongoing process of harassment.

And er, I'm not sure anyone on this thread really cares what you've heard about wimmin on mumsnet.

Hang on, you seem to have completely accepted that the woman must have been being harassed because she thought she was being harassed. You are also assuming that a paper about bat fellatio can only have been mentioned because it sounds a bit sexy (not sure it does, actually). I really don't know what the issue is - do you think he was saying 'I'm a bat, lets get it on?' it jst sounds like too neat a peg to hang criticism on.

I've accepted that the woman was harassed because the hearing UPHELD her complaint.

I'm pretty sure I've put UPHELD in capitals 3 times now.

But you keep ignoring that Heroine. She was harassed, the hearing found so. They upheld her complaint. So they found that she didn't just think she was harassed, they agreed with her - she was in fact harassed.

And the bats and oral sex thing, was a way of this creep introducing the subject of oral sex while pretending not to be introducing the subject of oral sex.

Are you a man Heroine?

No, we have accepted that she was being harassed because both the university and the court found, after having access to all the evidence and hearing the defendant present his side of the matter, that she WAS being harassed.

ah yes, but my faith in Universities upholding anything but what they want to despite seeing all the evidence has been shaken by seeing someone I really liked getting completely shafted even though the evidence is clearly in his favour. Even if he was guilty of harassement, that still doesn't mean he intended to harass. Sad but true

How can anyone (barring SN) not know that they are harassing someone?

Heroine you make it sound like the difference between murder & manslaughter. They may not have meant to do it, but the outcome is the same. I'm sure that's not what you meant.

I am assuming the disciplinary process looks at intent, outcome, and what a reasonable person would see as the path between them. Society demands that people moderate their actions so as not to inpinge on others. Sometimes even men are required to do this. Sad but true.

Ah yes, the "he didn't mean it" argument Heroine.

that's used a lot for rapists as well. "He didn't mean it". As long as a man can claim that he didn't mean to upset/ intimidate/ harass/ assault/ rape a woman, he can do as he likes, can he?