sexual advances - the big question

[BramshawHill]

BBC the big question is currently discussing whether sexual advances should be accepted as a part of life.

The first speaker has said it weakens men and women if women complain about it every time, and that it IS a part of life.

Anyone else watching? Thoughts?

First time posting, hello btw!

Dazzler149 - why did you change your name?

Anyway, before you're banned again you go, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to this thread.

I'll never know how you've remained so calm on a thread with so many hysterical women? Thank the Lord that Lazzer is here, for you to clap on the shoulder in a manly way, and agree that really hardly any women are harassed by men in real life at all - just these very few on MN.

Lazzer and Dazzer, along with a lot of the reactions to the Lord Rennard story, have demonstrated so well how women who report sexual harassment, in all it's forms, are not believed.

Larry's friends and mother are not the views of many and indeed most women. I do not spend my life warding off men but even I have had unwanted attention from sex pests. It is not fun chatting up. It is difficult stuff women regularly have to cope with which men rarely do.

I am though women on the thread coudl set uot a set of rules men could follow which woudl really help:

1. Follow your employer's staff handbook - if it forbids relationships with colleagues never start one.

1. Do not chat up women at work or in any context where you have power over them, interviews, MP appointments, etc etc Particularly avoid mixing work and pleasure where you are senior to the woman or can influence her promotion or lose her her job.

1. Don't touch a woman ever unless she agrees. Don't touch a strange woman - just ask her out if you feel you want to. Don't pout your hand on her bottom, down her skirt, up her top or kiss her without permission if you're at work, on a train etc etc.

1. To use my example above don't ask her if she wants sex at the end of a business meeting.

Presumably most of us can agree on those 4 rules whether we're male or female?

Dazzler, I think your assertion that you have never met a woman who has been subject to unwelcome attentions is very naive of you (that is the least combative word I can use at this point)

I think it far more likely that all these women would rather gnaw their own arm off than discuss their disquiet and vulnerability with someone who displays such a lack of insight into the problems faced on a daily basis by many females from about the age that they reach sexual maturity

" They actually (in general) say that it is infantilising of women when they are unable to deal with it "

What does that mean?

That they are infantile for not being able to deal with it?

Or that it is infantilising of them to not expect them to deal with it?

Either way, the focus is back on women's behaviour isn't it and discussing how they ought to deal with harassment, instead of on that of men and discussing how and why they harass and how they can be prevailed upon to stop it.

I agree that Larry and Dazzler have absolutely demonstrated how men simply dismiss what women say about sexual assault. And this is why women don't speak up when it happens to them - because RL is full of men like them who will minimise and/ or dismiss women's complaints.

Oh and here's another thing.

You know all those men who are crap at reading social cues? Who plough on regardless, not bothering to note that the women they are intruding upon, are not showing any interest in pursuing the interaction?

Well those men are absolutely capable in a workplace scenario, of clocking when the best time to approach the boss with this problem is and if they see that he's not up for discussing this issue right now, they back off and make sure they broach the issue at a better time. They know when to approach their suppliers with the news that there's been a 25% budget cut and they won't be able to spend the same amount next financial year as they did this year, but they still want to retain their discount and they know by the body language and the tenor of the conversation, that Wednesday's meeting wasn't the right time to raise that, but they'll see how the land lies at next week's meeting. When they're in a club, they know when it's safe to smack down a lairy lad who has had too much to drink and when it's best to avoid said lad because things might turn violent.

And we're supposed to believe that those men are overtaken with the inability to read cues and become utterly socially inept once they're in the company of women.

Bullshit.

FB,

"What does that mean?

That they are infantile for not being able to deal with it?"

It means that adult women do not need protection from insensitive men and are not going to be traumatised for life by being touched on the knee at a dinner party. It harks back to the Victorian view of women as delicate, precious flowers.

Re your second post, I have been approached at work many times by guys asking for pay rises at the most inappropriate times and for the most inappropriate reasons, so I am not sure these men reserve their insensitivity for interactions with women.

Xenia,

You cannot claim my mother and friends are atypical any more than I know that the women on here are atypical. They are generally successful women who are confident enough to tell rude men to get lost when required, as I am sure you are.

I basically agree your four rules except for the one re touch. Many people are tactile and touch someone on the arm or even knee while chatting. As many women do it to men as men do it to women. Again it depends on the environment and relationship between the two protagonists. As for banning workplace relationships, good luck! Just about every place has a policy against it and it is always flouted and, as long as the two get on with their jobs, it is nearly always ignored.

(And, although I share some of Dazzer's views, we are two separate people with our own opinions and perspectives so although "Lazzer and Dazzer" has a certain ring to it, we have not had a mind meld and are two different people.)

So the bar for it to be acceptable is that she is not traumatised for life?

How long is she allowed to be traumatised for? A year? A month? A week? A minute? A second?

And of course, the idea that it is the touch on the knee that is traumatising, is the deeply dishonest proposition here. It isn't the touch, is it? It's the power relationships of those who are touching without permission or invitation and what that touch means.

Pretending that "touch" is just touch - nothing else - and so therefore a woman would feel the same discomfort/ indifference whether it's a bloke in a pub or her boss's boss who has actual power over her ability to earn her living, furthers the interests of harassers.

And of course, it's shifting the focus back to the women who are touched without permission, rather than leaving it where it should be: on the men who do this.

And what an exciting work life you must have, with all these socially inept men who continually approach you for pay rises Larry.

Promqueen,

If we are talking about rudeness, of course they should not have to put up with it. But how many rudenesses of one sort or another do we all have to put up with in our lives?

Some people are pleasant, some far less so. If I could instantly turn every rude individual on this planet into a polite one, I would do so. However, I can't. I don't think, though, that there are more unpleasant men than women. And women can certainly impose on men, both sexually and otherwise. Bodily, men tend to be bigger and thus maybe more frightening but you only have to view youtube hen night footage to see some pretty rude sexually aggressive women.

There are no easy fixes and blaming men or the patriarchy for people's insensitivity and rudeness is way too simple.

When people mix up rudeness with assault, though, that is another matter. An unwanted touch on the knee at a dinner party can be annoying but it is in no way assault (and even if one could say it was, literally, in law), the CPS would never proceed.

" They actually (in general) say that it is infantilising of women when they are unable to deal with it "

What does that mean?

That they are infantile for not being able to deal with it?

Or that it is infantilising of them to not expect them to deal with it?

Either way, the focus is back on women's behaviour isn't it and discussing how they ought to deal with harassment, instead of on that of men and discussing how and why they harass and how they can be prevailed upon to stop it.

Absolutely. Larry is hinting that it's the woman's own fault for not being able to shout 'fuck off' at the offending man - and because his mother apparently bats off male attention with ease, any woman should be able to?

Fact is, Larry, I, and in fact all the women I have ever known have had to deal with some sort of male harassment during their lives. We do in general deal with it and learn to live with it. But that doesn't make it all right, and that doesn't mean that women shouldn't speak out about it. It is intimidating and it shouldn't happen.

And you know what - they're are plenty of people I wouldn't discuss this with irl - certainly not with people like you and your mother who are apt to brush these things under the carpet.

Telegraph article: Our Culture Is Changing And The Sexists Don't Like It

Oh well that's lucky for men who want to touch up women at dinner parties isn't it Larry.

Lucky the CPS is on their side.

FB,

"Pretending that "touch" is just touch - nothing else - and so therefore a woman would feel the same discomfort/ indifference whether it's a bloke in a pub or her boss's boss who has actual power over her ability to earn her living, furthers the interests of harassers. "

I never said this. In fact I think I said in a previous post that you had to approach work people and especially subordinates with great sensitivity. Most work places have very robust policies against harrassment these days which is a thoroughly good thing.

Luckily I am "retired" from that line of work now. Got boring dealing with infantile 21-40 year olds. Much happier dealing with toddlerish toddlers than man (and occasionally woman) childs.

Oh, and you may not like it, Lazzer, but I think Dazzer thinks you two are a team

But you implied it when you said a woman shouldn't be traumatised by a hand on her knee.

That implies that a touch is just a touch.

When we all know it's not.

And also, we are back to discussing women's reactions instead of men's behaviour.

FB,

"Oh well that's lucky for men who want to touch up women at dinner parties isn't it Larry."

What about women who touch up men at dinner parties? Or is that different because of the "power" relationship. And what if it is a female boss and a male subordinate?

"Wotaboutthenmenz"

Because it happens so often doesn't it Larry. With the same regularity and the same level of career-destroying shit attached to it.

You wouldn't expect me to say anything other than all abuse of power is wrong.

And I have come to expect that you don't acknowledge the huge disparity of power between men and women.

Promqueen,

Probably not but the ratio is also probably a lot closer than a lot would believe. Plenty of people in power abuse their positions in all sorts of ways and more and more women now have positions of power. And men are far less likely to report it, the culture is really not on their side, they would be laughed at.

FB,

I am afraid I don't, not in the society in which I mix in the UK. I don't see much disparity at all, and in many spheres women are outperforming men. Another discussion, though.....

On a global scale, or even among a different social demographic (I think it is now referred to as CDE) I totally acknowledge the huge disparity of power.

What evidence do you have that men report abuse less than women?

I have read evidence that says men are far more likely to report an incidence of domestic violence than women are for example.

I don't know about workplace abuse.

It does demonstrate why some women don't report these things though - they know they're going to have to counter attitudes such as Lazzer and Dazzer's.