Men, women, and unwanted sexual advances

Harvey Weinstein's alleged sexual misdemeanours, and as some allege, rape has led to the issue of sexual abuse and sexual harassment being discussed in the media. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably, so let me state at the outset that they are not the same- the former is much more serious.

Let us accept that times have changed from the days when I was a young man. In those days in an office any young woman could be subjected to unwanted attention, and if they had the temerity to complain to the boss they would be told that 'boys will be boys' and not to make a fuss.

I am ashamed to say that when I worked in an office in the mid nineteen fifties, and had to ask a young typist to do something for me, I put my arm around her. She told me in no uncertain terms to remove it, and called me a creep; that put me in my place!

And that is what worries me about the present debate.  It is in the nature of young men to try and make it with young women, and if the women don't want the advances they should, like my typist,  make their feelings clear. It only becomes harassment if they persist.

There is another problem however, and that is the problem of power. Lord Acton famously said 'All power corrupts' and men (it is nearly always men) sometimes use their power to gain sexual favours. An obvious example of this is the casting couch, but of course it can occur in any industry where women want to seek advancement, and men have the power to impede their progress.

Clearly this behaviour is an abuse, and little short of blackmail.

On the other hand it must be said that some women are drawn to powerful men, and others will use their sexuality to gain their objectives.

What is also worrying about the present situation is the ability of people to make wide-ranging and unsubstantiated allegations, often on social media, followed by a consensus that there is no smoke without fire. This goes against the important principal that a man (or woman) is innocent until proven guilty, and smacks of a witch hunt.

Unless he is guilty of more serious offences (and we don't know this) there is something odd about the Defence Secretary being forced to resign over an incident 15 years ago when he patted a journalists knee an number of times. As the woman herself said, 

it must be the strangest reason for a resignation in political history.

Michael Jimack

The Church's Dilemma

Although I am an atheist, albeit one with a Jewish heritage, I have always had a soft spot for the Church of England; for its' eccentricities and its' pick and mix attitudes. I remember the Red Dean Hewlett Johnson, and David Jenkins the Bishop of Durham, who didn't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection.

This latest controversy over gay marriage is typical of the knots the church ties itself up in, due in my opinion to a lack of intellectual clarity and woolly thinking.

Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury has said the church needs a twenty-first century understanding  of being human, and being sexual.

This of course is what those who want the church to accept gay marriage believe. The traditionalists base their objection on the scriptures, the word of God. Presumably they still believe that all anal intercourse is an abomination, although hopefully not agreeing to the punishments that in the past were meted out to transgressors.

The modernisers use semantics and words like reinterpretation, or continuous revelation, or even 'that passage is not so important and is negated by other more compassionate passages.' And therein lies the problem, who decides what is important? If one part can be discounted or updated, why not others, the virgin birth and the resurrection for example?

Personally I am not against same sex couples getting married, if that is what they want to do, but I am at a loss to understand why they would want a Christian ceremony considering the historical attitude of the church to homosexuality from ancient times to the twentieth century.

I think you either have to accept that the bible was written by fallible human beings who reflected the prejudices, culture, science, mores and world view existing at the time, or that these scribes had a direct line to God. In which case everything is true, although why the Creator should have such a poor knowledge of his own creation is beyond my understanding.