SAID THE ACTRESS TO THE BISHOP...?

I've been following some of the recent stushie about alleged 'sexual harassment' with mixed feelings.  While no one can excuse rape, or inappropriate touching, I can't help but feel that some feminists have been exploiting it for their own ends - namely, putting the boot into men just because they're men.  The impression has been created that all men are latent rapists, perverts, potty-mouthed louts, and downright nasty individuals.  (And, to be fair, a lot of them are.)  If you're male, you've been told for many a long year now that if you ever find yourself walking behind a woman on a street, you should cross the road so that she won't feel threatened.  But why would she feel threatened?  Because you're a man of course.  As a man, I find this extremely insulting.  Actually, the people most likely to be attacked on the street are young males, but they don't expect people behind them to cross to the opposite pavement to allay their fears.

Let me tell you something.  I've worked in mostly all-women environments a few times throughout my working life, and I can categorically state that they can be just as vulgar, sexually suggestive, and 'touchy-feely' as some men can be.  (And I know whereof I speak, as I was once 'touched up' by a woman at work.)  The deciding factor in whether a man is being inappropriately verbally vulgar seems to depend on whether he's considered attractive or not.  If you look like Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp, you can tell a 'naughty' joke and women will laugh; if you don't, then there are always some women (and men) who are determined to be offended.  If that isn't your experience, then you've been lucky.  Some of the dirtiest jokes I know were told to me by women.  And every weekend, I see women out on the street being loud, sweary, vulgar, and offensive.  Men don't have a monopoly on those vices.

Almost every night on TV, you see comedians indulging in vulgar innuendo, or even being sexually explicit in the jokes they tell.  As the camera pans across the audience, you see women laughing just as much as men (sometimes moreso), and it's a safe bet it's the same with viewers at home.  I find it hypocritical that someone can view and laugh at such material on a regular basis (and thus bestow their approval on it) and then take offense when some poor guy at work makes a comment or tells a joke in a similar vein.  Remember when some woman a while back complained about a guy complimenting her on her Facebook (I think) photo, saying that his comments were offensive?  (All he'd done, if I remember correctly, was to say that it was a nice photo.)  Well, the sh*t hit the fan, but it was later revealed that she'd done the very same thing on various occasions herself.  So what is it that seemingly makes it okay for women to assume the exclusive right to be offended?

Let's be clear though.  It's wrong to use one's position of power or authority to make sexual passes at employees, whether they be men or women.  On the other hand, there are those who view such passes as a sign of approval, who even, in fact, go out of their way to ingratiate themselves with the boss by flirting and using their womanly wiles to encourage such attention.  That's part of the problem.  There seems to be no consensus among women (or men) as to what is acceptable and what isn't.  Johnny Depp could approach a woman in a bar and say "Grab your coat, luv, you've pulled" and the object of his attention would probably swoon with delight (or at least be flattered).  Whereas, if it was Johnny Vegas (before he was famous), the comment would likely be far less appreciated.  We need to have the same standard of what's considered acceptable behaviour for everyone, not vary it depending on looks, wealth, or status.

So is that what it boils down to?  If the person making the pass is physically attractive, no harm done, but if it's someone much less aesthetically-pleasing to the eye, then he's a grotty pervert who deserves to be lynched?  Surely there has to be another, better way to distinguish between what is acceptable and what isn't.  At the moment, the measure of what is regarded as unwelcome or offensive seems to be completely subjective, even arbitrary, depending on who's making the remark and who it's directed at.  It's the culture which is at fault and something needs to be done, but let's not fool ourselves that men are the only villains in this drama, or that women are the only victims.

Another thing.  I can quite understand why some people are afraid to complain about sexual harassment because of a fear of not being believed, but in the case of Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie, their chief concerns seem to have been to protect their financially lucrative careers, at the expense of potentially allowing other women to become victims of their alleged 'molester'.  (I say 'alleged' merely to legally protect myself, and because the guy has yet to be found guilty.)  Now the pair are being lauded for their bravery in coming forward, when their former silence facilitated other women allegedly falling prey to the individual they're now complaining about.  They hadn't been threatened with violence or murder if they'd spoken out earlier - the only thing they seemed to be concerned about were smaller bank accounts.  That's something we should perhaps remember when they're making their self-serving, self-righteous pronouncements.

Anyway, having said that, nothing is ever that simple and I'm sort of feeling my way along (behave) and trying to work out what I think about all this, so feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts and observations.  For the record, I think we should have capital punishment for all convicted rapists and paedos, but when it comes to making a clumsy, non-physical pass at someone, or making a comment which can evoke opposite responses depending on who the listener is, then it's probably better if we try and keep a sense of perspective about things.  It does genuine victims no service to equate their experience with far lesser 'transgressions'.

What sayest thou?