Most men underestimate the frequency and seriousness of sexual harassment. I, for one, do not. Here are some statistics:

Approximately 85 percent of working women have been or will be sexually harassed at some point in their working lives, and most never report the abuse.

Source: http://college.hmco.com/history/read...xualharass.htm

That counts only the most extreme form of sexual harassment- that which occurs in the workplace. Let this be made very clear: Every advance that could reasonably be interpreted as having any sexual meaning ("reasonably" to be defined in court) by any man towards any woman that has not been clearly and specifically requested constitutes sexual harassment. Such advances, having been made by men, who are usually physically stronger, constitute a form of cruel humiliation and intimidation that causes many if not most psychological problems that women have (I should make it clear that women have no more psychological problems than men). This is what must be done to stop this brutish oppression of women. First, sexual harassment must always be a criminal matter, with federal penalties of 5-20 years for those guilty of it. Second, all judges and jurors presiding over such cases must be women. Third, only seven of twelve jurors should have to agree that an action constituted sexual harassment. In this way the legal system will treat victims of this evil with something closer to the proper respect.
Domestic abuse has been one of the greatest evils in every society. Usually committed by men (though there are exceptions), apart from causing physical injury, it forever destroys trust of the opposite gender and leaves psychological scars that never heal, as every abuse victim knows. The solution is similar. In addition to long prison sentences, judges and juries must be of the gender of the victim and only a 7-5 decision from a jury should be necessary for a conviction. Moreover, the government should supplement private efforts and build far more crisis centers for women who have been the victim of any kind of abuse.
Desertion, one of the main causes of so many social problems in our society, must be dealt with severely. The financial element in this crime is unique, however. Deadbeat fathers should be declared outlaws who may be brought to justice by any means short of killing them. In addition to serving long prison sentences, they should be forced to pay the entirety of their net worth to the women whom they deserted and to their children. In this way, the women so horribly mistreated, while they may never recover psychologically, will have no difficulty in raising their children. If the deserting father is poor, the government should provide a monthly check of $2,500 plus $500 for each dependent to the deserted woman.
Finally, I ask that no one be offended by my proposed solutions. I could be incorrect, but I ask that all criticism remain constructive. Thank you very much.

1. Where does one get numbers on the percentage of women who have been harassed but never reported it?

2. Well, let's define "reasonable" here. I recall a time when I was walking accross a college campus, I stopped to ask where the Division of Foreign Languages was located. She accused me of trying to get her in bed with me. Is this "reasonable"? Is the law to be written in such a gender specific way that the law refuses to recognize any possibility of women harassing men, men harassing men, or women harassing women? And, moreover, with such a broad interpretation of harassment, Force, how are you ever going to get laid?

3. Have you ever heard of trial by a jury of your peers? And, by the way, all crimes should require the same majority for a verdict.

4. Sociological studies have shown that 50% of domestic violence is perpetrated by women and that number is rising. Also see 3, above.

5. The government should build far more crisis centers for men who are beaten by their wives.

6. Yes, deadbeat dads should be dealt with, and severely (as should deadbeat moms). But why should government reward people for screwing their idiot brains out and making a bunch of kids they can't support? And, by the way, how does one pay child support if one is doing 20 years in the pen? Unless you're suggesting starting prison factories, etc., and paying wages to the prisoners/workers.

7. As a male victim of domestic violence, I am offended by your solutions. Another thing is: Once again, your "feminism" is of the chivalric "protect the weak little woman for her own good because she can't protect herself" variety.

It has nothing do with women being any less strong emotionally than men (they are not). Men are physically stronger (on average) and are more aggressive both physically and sexually (the latter perhaps for societal reasons). I got my statistics from Catharine MacKinnon, so unless you are calling her, the toughest feminist on the planet, a "weak little woman", I fail to see your point. She did an anonymous survey of women. "Unreported" means "not reported to authorities". Once again, I say that if men were in the place of women we would all agree with these measures. As a victim of domestic abuse yourself, you would have been treated no differently than women who have been abused. Remember that I wrote:

Hence, in your case, the judge and all of the jurors would have been men.

But I was treated differently. I was arrested for getting beaten up. This would not have happened to a woman.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that, historically, women's status as second-class citizens has sprung from the fact they they allegedly needed to be protected and so chivalric male protectors prescribed things that were "for their own good." Again, another "feminist" thread by Force seeks to chivalrically protect women. In other words, by being the great protector of women, you belittle women by assuming that they cannot protect themselves. Moreover, no other crime requires that judge and jury be of the same gender as the victim or allows a simple majority for conviction ... another example of chivalric extension of special protection for women.

But in my system, that would not be the case.

Women who abuse often rely on the man being too gentlemanly to hit a woman ... ever. They also rely on the knowledge that cops will be predisposed to the knee-jerk reaction of simply arresting the man. Women are also more likely to use weapons. And far too often, nothing is done about it ... until the man turns up dead.

First of all, I am not "belittling" women; I am simply recognizing that in today's society they are oppressed and that they are not, on average, as physically strong as men. Again, I base my ideas on the MacKinnon/Dworkin school of feminism. They recognize two facts that most men do not. First, our current society's attitudes are such that the male is the person and the woman is the object. They also know that men, on average, are physically stronger than women. The combination of those factors makes many women victims of rape and physical abuse, and the first factor (objectification) by itself leads to the constant and largely ignored emotional victimization of women by male actions, that, if committed by women against men would cause us just as much suffering (we are no stronger emotionally). MacKinnon/Dworkin feminism is the way in which women protect themselves.

Let me ask you this, Force. Is asking a woman for a date an example of sexual harassment?

If police officers fail to be objective in such cases, they should be taken to task for that. That in no way relates to my first post in this thread, however.