פרסומים אחרונים במדור "פוליטיקה"

Buddy,
You are not a woman.
You are not a woman looking for work.
You are not a reasonable man with a logical set of arguments.
But we may admit, you can avoid being all that, and still not be working for Ramon.

I will say this is one of those cases that normally wouldn’t land in the courtroom. But as for “witch hunt” “bad naughty silly woman’s rights organisation” and “women won’t be hired anymore”, that’s illogical and not called for.

There were certain nasty macho norms in Israel, and women had to put up with an unfair share of harassment. It is good that people are working to change those norms, also through the court room.

If you are against changing those norms, you are either a pathological conservative, or someone who enjoys harassing.

When you believe that:
a. At a beginning of a sexual act the consent of both parties should not necessarily be secured.
b. The real nuisance in this case was the reaction of the woman movements.
c. A reasonable man should fear this verdict, and should consider therefore not employing women.
d. Ramon’s behaviour isn’t part of those norms that are changing in our times.
e. Regarding consent as an imperative part of any sexual act would bring us back to the Victorian era.
f. Physical contact is a sexual signal.
You are pathologically conservative.

1. You are not really looking for reasonable standards for consent, are you?
2. You condemned the woman rights organization. It's your right to back off.
3. He is in that case not a reasonable man.
4. We differ here.
5. Victims can defend themselves. Offenders can do it as well. We can believe, like the judges in this case, that a victim is sometimes too stunned to react.
6. No and no. It's not obvious that a hug (any hug) is a sexual signal. And knowing that a kiss is much more evident than a hug, the woman being a non consenting participant, may have been less injured by it, and less likely to complain.
7. You can sue me or ignore me.

Wrong madam, ignoring is *not* answering. But you can try again.

And like I mentioned before, you express your annoyance in this case, and directed it at the woman right organizations. When you were confronted on that logic, you discharged the organizations and went for the court system, thus fulfilling your right to back off.

As for the kiss, according to the account in the court ruling: he held her head suddenly, and kissed her. She backed off and looked stunned. He still asked her twice for her number. If he wanted to get it, he would have gotten it, and would have apologized accordingly.

In our case, there is no law against answering you, though it's not much of an intellectual challenge.

No idea what you're on about, but have a good one.

Are you sure?