Since the Harvey Weinstein story broke and the #MeToo campaign went viral, a sexual harassment hysteria has taken over. No institution is escaping, and Westminster is the latest. Men appear unable to defend themselves.

Today I write in the Daily Mail why this is bad for women as well as for men – and out of proportion by comparison with the serious issues of the day that the public need Parliament to focus on. The man-shaming should stop.


  1. Spot on Kathy,
    Making blanket statements about ‘men’ is sexist.
    If you were to take many of this constant barrage of statements from media and political pundits and apply those same comments to statements blacks or Jews then you would probably get a visit from the Police.

    But on a positive note, I have realised in the last couple of years that media ‘outrage’ has minimal affect any more, as the public have become immune to it.

    • Quite so; it is the same with headlines such as ‘Twitter post causes fury amongst — insert ‘ whatever group you think might fit.

      TBH I don’t think anyone in the real world gives a monkeys.

      • Not being a twitterer I used to think a “twitter storm” meant 100s of messages. However on one occasion I followed up on a Channel 4 news story based on a twitter storm and found there had been 5 tweets.

    • My favourite is the term “Public Concern” or Public Outrage” used by the media to justify their media witch hunts.

  2. Isn’t it strange that the music industry despite all its hyper sexualisation and misogynist, violent and sexist rap music, seem to completely free of this harassment problem and have come in for little if any comment. Are we to believe that groupies no longer exist and sex, drugs and rock and roll is a thing of the past?
    Or perhaps old white men past their prime are easier targets and no longer particularly useful or lucrative. Or am I just being cynical?

    • Yes I too find it bizarre, given the keenness for “historical” abuse I presumed the courts would be filled by ageing rock stars, given the lurid stories of their antics filled many papers at the time. Indeed there was the odd one shacked up with “underage” girls and at least one notorious marriage.

      • Many young women think it is a feather in their cap if they “pull” a rock star. That did not simply apply to “groupies” back in the 1960s. Some of the biggest stars of that period still seem to have no problems in attracting pretty girls young enough to be their granddaughters. See the stories about Mick Jagger and a 22 year old in the tabloids today.

      • You question indicates that your knowledge of rap is as poor as you assume mine is and by definition it would be impossible for me to list them without them being blocked on this site!

      • //

        Overt misogyny in rap music emerged in the late 1980s, and has since
        then been a feature of the music of numerous hip hop artists.[2]
        A 2005 content analysis of six outlets of media found that music
        contained substantially more sexual content than any other media
        A survey of adolescents showed that 66% of black girls and 57% of black
        boys believe that rap music videos portray black women in “bad and
        offensive ways”.[49] Gangsta rap, the most commercially successful subgenre of hip hop,[50] has been particularly criticized and associated with misogyny.[7][34]

        In a 2001 content analysis of gangsta rap, sociologists Charis E. Kubrin and Ronald Weitzer claimed that approximately 22% of the examined rap lyrics featured violence against women, including depictions of assault, murder and rape.
        In their opinion, the prevalence of misogynistic themes in songs were
        as follows: name-calling and shame account for 49%, sexual
        objectification accounts for 67%, distrust of women at 47%, acts of
        violence against women account for 18%, and human trafficking account
        for 20%.[51] By contrast, in a similar study by sociologist Edward G. Armstrong, Eminem scored 78% for violent misogyny. Of the eighteen songs on his 2001 album The Marshall Mathers LP, eleven contain violent and misogynistic lyrics, nine of which referred to killing women.[8]//

  3. Yes Kathy. These supposed strong women who have been voted into Parliament to vote on important issues concerning our nation are now unable to fend off unwanted advances! Pull the other one.
    You now have all opportunities open to you and you are a bunch of whining cry babies. Strong women know where the boundaries are and they give as good as they get.
    What about the unfortunate young girls without your privileges who are groomed and raped in our towns – not so vocal on that are you.

  4. In 2014 there was a similar “outrage” following a Unison survey of MPs staff. On that occasion the media campaign stalled once it became clear that the majority of the reported harassment was of men. Indeed the Union rep. was rather brave in interviews in facing some rather hostile questioning but stuck to her facts. A “confidential hotline” was established and still exists. One presumes the media dropped the story in 2014 as the implication was that it was gay male and female MPs doing the harassing. This actually seemed quite plausible as there had of course been a series of earlier “outrages” orchestrated by La Harman etc. in the New Labour years so one presumes heterosexual male MPs had been “trained”.

  5. Sexual harrassment is always the man’s fault, NEVER the victim’s.

    Instead of telling women what to do, I’ve got a better idea: why not teach men not to sexually harrass, assault and r*pe women and girls?

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    • Why not ask women why they dress to provoke attention. Tight clothes following every curve with high heels to accentuate the legs. There has never been more flaunting of the female body than at this point in time and you demand that men must control themselves. Well as the Muslim population grows that is going to become difficult as they are told that only full covering is appropriate because men cannot control themselves.

      • Women don’t dress to please men.

        We do it because it’s empowering and we want to look good to please ourselves.

        If men can’t control themselves, they are pathetic and need to grow up.

          • No doubt Tricia can but I was exercising my right to free speech. Would you also complain if a woman supported Tricia, or a man who “identified” as a woman?

          • Why not?

            Nasty Women are successful, assertive and ambitious.

            Nasty Women change the world.

            Nasty Women intimidate weak men.

          • So success for a woman is solely based on negatives, is it? No chance she could just have entrepreneurial flair, or be an outstanding thespian, or write wonderful novels, for examples?

            You are obsessed with power relations and see relationships between people purely in terms of a power struggle (you would call the lust for power and domination an “objective” feature of all human relationships – megalomania is just a human emotion and no more “objective” than any other).

            You are a typical member of the managerial/professional class.

          • Ach, she’s harmless and goes away when ignored, rather like static on an AM radio. Must be a tough way to go through life, being ignored wherever you go, but we all make choices, hers are unusually bad, though.

          • Yes indeed. They deleted my post, because it was too close to the truth, but they let this woman post all this hatred toward men on this page.

            They’ll probably delete this one too once they read it.

          • It remains in your profile, Shrek. Anyone can see it, and these feminists always click the privacy tab while hypocritically rifling through the profile of anyone they see as the enemy. We have nothing to hide, do we? Conservative Woman can only shield this cretin so far. Don’t think I’ll bother coming here again if only certain chosen people can speak their tiny minds.

          • Yes, I’ve been watching it in my Disqus profile to see if they will approve or delete it. They have chosen to not do either. So you can only say certain things here if you are male, but you can say more if you are female.

          • I am a real woman. I am a wife and a mother and a grandmother. I have a daughter and a son, a granddaughter and a grandson.I do not preference one over the other.
            Men and women need each other, we are complementary to each other. Without us finding our significant other we are incomplete.
            My granddaughter and grandson are going to be the casualties in this warfare that the feminists have brought about. Boy meets girl and they fall in love is now a pipe dream. Life has been reduced to exchanging bodily fluids with anybody!

        • I wear high heels on occasion to avoid being dwarfed by my daughters.

          I am glad I can command the respect of men whatever my footwear.

          I would not respect anyone who valued me according to my height or my footwear.

          You need to learn how to empower yourself internally, not externally.

        • Pathetic!

          There is/was a character in the comic Viz, called Millie Tant. Your post above is *precisely* the sort of thing that this cartoon character would say!

    • What exactly are the responsibilities of women in their interactions with men? Do you think that only men should be careful about how they behave and women should be able to behave however they want? Is that equality?

    • unless a man is harrassed by a woman ? You see this in child sex all the time ; a male teacher will go to a jail, a female teacher won’t.

      • Then there is the case of the Macrons. They met when she was a 40 year old teacher, he was her 15 year old pupil. He is now the President of France.

        The age of consent in France is 15. Let’s transfer the scene to the UK, where the age of consent is 16, and imagine a 41 year old male teacher with a 16 year old female pupil. Just how well would the teacher, now 64, do in the world of politics? Would he be able to climb the greasy pole to reach ministerial office? Or even become PM? What would foreign politicians think of him?

  6. All sex hysterias rapidly become tiresome and fall victim to their own hypocrisy. Sex is simmering close to the surface in every area which puts men and women together. I’d be surprised if Garnier’s researcher wasn’t complicit in his «high jinks» or that young men and women who are allegedy victim to «inappropriate behaviour» don’t exact a quid pro quo. The media outlets pointing sanctimonious fingers at MPs are themselves unlikely to be particularly monasterial back at the office. Let’s have a trawl through Sunday Times and Daily Mail hacks and see what allegations we come up with. (I wouldn’t bother with the Guardian.) The pretence is that the guilty parties are all older men exploiting the tender innocence of young women. When I worked, young women knew what they wanted and how to take car of themselves and I don’t imagine things have changed. Weinstein is one thing but a lot of these harassment allegations elsewhere are probably of a completely different order. I’m waiting for the first claim of satanic sacrifices of virgins in the cellars of the HoC. Won’t be long at this rate.

    • “Sex is simmering close to the surface in every area which puts men and women together.”

      Ever heard of the LGBT communities? Care to explain why you’re perpetuating a heteronormative view of the world?

      • So it’s another of your moronic sockpuppets then — do you never tire of publicly outing yourself as a cretin ?


      • Like it or not, you live in a predominantly heteronormative world which does its best to cater for LGBT difference which is as it should be for any minority. Your apparent dislike of men puts you in an infinitesimally small minority of women which is sad.

      • Because the So-called LGBT lot are abnormal by definition. When you can outnumber we normal people then that is when we become abnormal. You have your view of the world and we have ours.

      • Biology that perpetuates a hetero-normative view of the world, you clown.

        Maybe you haven’t noticed that transsexuals (is that this week’s “correct” word?) can’t reproduce?

        Don’t bother to reply. I won’t read it.

  7. An excellent piece Kathy. This hysteria reduces women to fragile little flowers who can’t look after themselves. The over-reaction also diminishes the impact of rape. There is no equivalence between rape and an inappropriate pass. And I find this man hatred intolerable. Surely our government has better things to do than hunt down male MPs on the pretext that they just might have told a naughty joke twenty years ago?

  8. Well done, Kathy, for what in the current climate is a courageous piece that brings some much-needed perspective.

    No doubt you will be excoriated by the Provisional wing of the Sisterhood but I imagine that your viewpoint will find favour with many everyday women, ie those who simply get on with their lives rather than see themselves as a professional victim and who do not exist on Twitter in a state of perpetual outrage.

    At least until further stories emerge, the weekend tale regarding Mark Garnier is held to be emblematic of the prevailing culture. Only he and the secretary actually know the full context of what occurred but, as alluded to in Kathy’s article, it seems incongruous that any self-respecting and experienced female employee would carry out a sudden and unexpected instruction to buy sex toys; frankly, Garnier’s claim that the Soho shopping trip was the culmination of some mutual jocularity, which she is now maliciously re-interpreting, seems far more plausible.

    In fact, if this story of alleged sexual harassment reminded me of anyone, it was less Harvey Weinstein and more Mo Mowlam, who, as Northern Ireland Secretary, apparently bragged that she would send her protection officers to buy tampons. Two decades on, might we still hear from those exploited gentlemen?

    • Indeed, context is everything. I must admit I found it rather implausible that Garnier would have done this ‘straight off’.

  9. The Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence, was roundly ridiculed by the “usual suspects” for his practice of never appearing in public at social events without Mrs. Pence on his arm, and generally avoiding ALL sorts of occasions when he would need to be unchaperoned with a female.

    Yet, one could not come up with a better way of insulating oneself from these sorts of charges. Sure, Mr. Pence might be somewhat over-cautious (and dare I say a bit paranoid) about the idea that he could be “badger-gamed.” On the other hand, he has never been accused of “sexual harassment,” either.

    Taking it off the subject of sex, we should think of it rather as, in the parlance of the RC Church, the avoidance of the “near-occasions of sin,” just as we would do in the avoidance of drink-drive charges by, y’know, NOT drinking.

  10. It’s really disappointing that the Troll, ‘Nasty_Woman’ (Nick H again?) has turned up on this site too, to deflect from such a serious and thought provoking piece.

  11. No one would defend sexual assault, not in their right mind anyway, but I think that the real question that should be asked is, ‘What’s in it for me?’

    We now have the ludicrous and accepted principle in the workplace, which now sits within our employment law and regulation, that if someone feels that they have been offended by anything that has been said to them – they have been. Gone is the old ‘Clapham Omnibus test; ‘would an ordinary and reasonable person really have been offended by this?’

    So now the door is open for the greedy, the dishonest, the manipulative, the sinister (or all of the above) to accuse and abuse (largely) men, because what’s in it for them is; money, possibly…or vengeance…or the opportunity to close down speech and individuals of whom they don’t approve…or it is a way of gaining control and supremacy.

    I know of many senior PA’s; intelligent, grown up, mature, supportive, the intellectual and emotional equal of their ‘bosses’, who would have no qualms whatsoever in doing a bit of personal shopping for them…and who would absolutely enjoy offering them their advice about ‘what women want’, to boot. The scandalous scenario, the source of much of the hysteria, is quite believable, but really not so scandalous – perhaps the MP concerned should have added ‘trustworthy’ to his PA’s job specification.

    • I note Kathy Griffin (who pretended to decapitate Trump) has , coincidentally I’m sure not, raised an allegation against the person who replaced her when the decapitation was deemed unacceptable.

      What I really fear, and consider likely/possible is a “Sexual Assault” law rather like the cretinous Racial law, viz its assault if someone says it is, even if neither party says it is, even if its stupid, say a tap someone on the shoulder to stop them being run over by a bus. This already has reached the US in Title IX

  12. What I find becoming more bizarre by the week is the appearance of a non-issue in the American media….the Weinstein debacle for instance, where an apparently well-known sexual predator in the mould of Chaplain, who deserves deep genuine public distaste….but which is conflated with a non-existent public-good issue into a form of recruitment campaign for whichever special interest group feels up for it today. Instead of politely observing our colonial brethren and letting them get on with it, we have a group of Westminster bubble wimmin trying to create another bandwagon here …with the full and avidly purulent support of our Media and PM.
    Can we now expect a blister of bi-sexual MPs concocting a deep self-loathing because Spacey the actor has forgotten an alleged assault many years ago involving a juvenile, covered his bet by apologising for it but come out as a homosexual anyway.
    Can we not insist that before anyone can come to “celebrity” they have to serve at least 30 years as a normal adult in a normal job with normal relationships and normal children.?

  13. So, despite all the strides the sisterhood have made, women are really fragile little flowers after all. Perhaps the only way out of this problem is to provide chaperones for all female staff in Parliament (all at tax payers’ expense) and appoint an anti groping czar. I can’t help feeling that this is simply a massive and deliberate distraction from the real world problems which politicians are unable and unwilling to face.

  14. All they are highlighting is that they are not equal to men if they are not strong enough to stand up to men and need to get other men to protect them either directly or via the law.
    Just watched “The Red Pill” which was a real eye opener on female violence.

  15. Divided we will fall.

    I think it a very prejudiced way to think, that ‘only women can be victims’ there are so many predatory gals and whose psyches are driven on by thoughts and lust for power, sexual conquest and dominance, it’s the way of the world and so get over it.

    Only MEN!

    Good grief, it smacks of that pernicious, unconscionable, and utterly preposterous conjecture put about by among others Alinsky. Alinskyism that doctrinal pap has it only white males can be recognized as the oppressor. ie only certain ‘tribes’ can be guilty of racism. But then, you should hear the Indians talking about their Pakistani work colleagues, or a Senegalese ratting on about “de bloody Zimbabweans, Carib’s, American blacks”

    Why can’t we all go back to just being people, flawed certainly but people nevertheless?

    Recount and remember to note well, ‘it’s a jungle out there’ and as social cohesion is sundered by the forces of cultural Marxism so do the beasts come to feast on our weakness and enfeeblement, and the Hyenas infest the streets.

  16. Kind of off topic, but not entirely. I said over the weekend that the market is very powerful in the US. Well the first Weinstein movie since all the noise has been released. “Variety” has the story:

    “The Weinstein Company’s “Amityville: The Awakening” grossed a minuscule $742 total at 10 locations on Saturday, two weeks after the haunted-house sequel began streaming for free on Google Play.”

    This is how you win the culture wars.

  17. I have never read such a self-serving piece of exculpatory nonsense in my life. These Members of Parliament have clearly abused their position in relation to vulnerable young women, who clearly felt that they could not bring a case against these men on account of the fact that they would not be listened to by the party. Has Ms. Gyngell ever been sexually threatened by a person, who exercised potentially greater influence and power than herself? I suspect not. When I was attending a boarding school during the 1960’s, a school prefect tried to sexually assault me, which episode I found deeply distressing for a long time afterwards. I knew that I would be unable to complain to a higher authority within the school, because the person concerned was a school prefect, as well as being destined for Oxford University, which meant that the authorities would take his side. I later learnt from a third party that this person had become a vicar! Par for the course? No doubt, if Ms Gyngell had a son, who reported such a matter to her, she would simply have told him to “man up!” The question that Ms. Gyngell should have asked is whether Cabinet ministers such as Messrs. Garnier and Crabb, who are already married with children, should be allowed to waste public money and time chasing and harassing vulnerable young girls, who are simply trying to make a career for themselves in Parliament? Stephen Crabb has already been in trouble for this sort of thing before and, if there was any justice, he should immediately lose the party whip and be de-selected by his local constituency association. It is no good the Prime Minister belatedly adopting a holier than thou attitude towards this matter, when she must have already been aware of this problem within Westminster. She is only now reacting to this scandal due to the fact that her position at the top of the greasy pole is threatened due to the potential long-term challenge to some members of her party. Shame on you Ms. Gyngell for treating the plight of these young women in such a distasteful and demeaning manner.

    • And I know a former PA at a university, who a senior professor tried it on with. She’s a skinny thing, but I’m still wondering how that professor explained his black eye to his wife. The she reported it and he spent the rest of his career on probation.

      I’d bet Kathy has, most women who have accomplished anything have. Most have dealt with it and moved on.

    • Isn’t the point of her article that the conflating of serious and non serious actions only goes to devalue the serious actions?

        • ‘undermine even further the vulnerability’
          I totally agree you, the vulnerability of these women is undermined. To position these adult women as vulnerable is an insult to all adult working women.
          Nearly all women are strong, and tough, and enabled. They are not ‘vulnerable’.

          If you want to use the word vulnerable then a better target would be the hundreds of teenage working class girls in Rotherham and Rochdale.

          • Very well put. The use of the word vulnerable really aggravates me when it’s used so freely.
            Drugged up burglars and travellers as examples.
            They become vulnerable when they end up in court.
            Not to me they don’t.

    • Women, we are forever being told are as good as or even better than men. They drink like fish, dress like tarts, sleep with dozens of men and we are supposed to believe they are all little wall flowers who cannot stand up for themselves.
      This is not a “plight of these young women” – it is a witch hunt of men.
      What is a plight of young women is those who are still in school being sexualised by left wing PSHE classes and made into fodder for grooming gangs.

    • I too went to a boarding school in the 1960’s. Whilst it is true that there was a culture to not tell tales, the school prefect would have been in doubt that I rejected his advances.
      If you know the difference between right and wrong you do have to stand up for right. It was called to man up. No problem with that!

    • As ever, Mrs. May, as the senior minister of HMG, is behaving most improperly by intervening in the business of the House of Commons. This is a matter for the House of Commons and the Speaker to sort out, and if they do not it is a matter for the electorate in the constituencies to consider when next voting for their MP.

      Mind you, it does highlight how dodgy David Cameron was when he corrupted the recall of MPs so that it became a stitch up for Parliament rather than a right of the constituents.

      • No, I am being deadly serious. I am very sorry that you can’t treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

        • And I’m very sorry that these strong self sufficient women ( in their own minds) can’t handle a workplace problem themselves. A violent rape is one thing, and there are police and prosecutors for that, if there aren’t you have another and much more serious problem. A hand touching a knee is quite a different kettle of stale fish, if a quiet word won’t suffice, I submit a hard right cross would. That’s what my poor oppressed sisters in the 50s would likely have done, maybe with a cast iron fry pan, at that.

          The real world is the real world, people will always try and take advantage of anybody they can. Don’t be that guy ( or girl). Grow up and deal with it.

        • Get rid of the public-subsidised bars in that fleapit and that should do the trick. Hollywood is one thing, but you’d have to be completely blotto and then some to find any female MP desirable. Whoever said politics was showbusiness for ugly people was absolutely right. And the women in there are even worse than the men. They shouldn’t be drinking on the job anyway, especially if it makes Jess Phillips, of all people, appear attractive in the half-light. If that’s what alcohol does for a person…

          Bet this gets censored, but I’m past caring.

  18. If I get one more gay colleague grab my buttocks cheeks in the office I am going to t w a t the fella, I swear to the Almighty God.

  19. Men bad, women good!
    Women good! Men Bad!
    Good women! Bad men!

    Every newspaper and TV story for the last 10 years.

  20. ‘This ‘harassment’ hysteria is out of proportion.’

    It appears so. I remember telling my girlfriend over a year ago and amid the slew of allegations then (many of which were fabricated) that I was glad I wasn’t single. Nowadays, it doesn’t matter if you’re single or with someone – it’s open season on ALL men.
    Sexual harassment/assault is a terrible thing but today’s thinking on what constitutes sexual harassment is incredibly vague. Chatting a woman up who isn’t receptive to your advances could be sexual harassment. Anything deemed as a micro aggression could be sexual harassment. All men will be on their guard especially if they find themselves alone with a woman.
    As far as these claims go, wherever they’re legitimate and serious, they should be rightly prosecuted. However, fabricated claims should be equally punishable – a message should be sent that you cannot make false claims and get away with it. Look at the story of the Oxbridge student who killed himself after a fabricated rape claim, closely followed by his mother who couldn’t live without him. What happened to the girl who made the claim? Living the life of Riley, I guess, without a care for the lives she ruined.

  21. How on earth did we go from ‘Sex and the City’ to Sexual Assault in the City’ in one swift leap?

    It’s not that long ago that women were glorifying their position of sexual equals, but that was in the day of second wave feminism, and women saw themselves as powerful, invincible.
    Cue third wave feminism and the Feminazis are convincing women of the opposite – see yourself as weak, vulnerable, and victims.

    This is the problem and although this might have started out as a legitimate complaint it has become a Macarthyite witch hunt.

    • How on earth did we go from ‘Sex not a suitable topic for public discussion’ to ‘Sex and the City’?

      No point trying to draw lines in the sand now!

  22. It’s (A) unwanted sexual harassment if she doesn’t fancy you or (B) a bit of light hearted fun if she does.
    It’s a bit difficult to nail a crime down when in (A) it exists and in (B) it doesn’t.

  23. I know it’s not much, but at least this latest craze has driven the last one, transgenderism, out of the headlines. At least for the time being.

  24. Thanks Kathy, excellent article. You write:

    “The question now is this: what do the feminists driving all this really want? What, exactly are their goals?”

    The answer is very simple. Feminists want ever more privilege for women and girls, and engineering moral panics is a proven way to get men ashamed of themselves as a class, and therefore unable / unwilling to counter feminist demands for ever more privilege. Men are so readily shamed by women, when they shouldn’t be. Women as a class aren’t shamed by the wrongdoing of some women.

  25. Call me a cynic, but I see a lot of distraction in this sexual harassment frenzy. The liberal media doesn’t want people to starting ask why the media failed for decades to bring Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour out in public (answer: they were bought off in exchange for celebrity exclusive interviews) and the liberal establishment want to cover up the next scandals to hit their Hollywood friends: the gay casting couch (which has been hinted at in the Kevin Spacey story) and pedophilia.

Comments are closed.