[kirklancaster]

So.... by that logic the only men who can pass uninvited comment to a stranger is a good looking intelligent person, whose comments should be accepted without question?

Kizzy - I never mentioned good looks or intelligence in the male in my post, nor did I say that his "comments should be accepted without question". Read my post again and you will see this.

It's not what you say it's how you say it that's the issue here? I'm sorry but I don't feel that was the point of the exercise at all and some have totally missed the point.

I really think that you are so intent on reading into the post what you want to see, that it is you who have 'missed the point' of what I was saying. I didn't say that "it was not what you say it's how you say it". I said "it's not only what you say, but also the way in which you say it." Meaning that if what you say is innocuous, cheery and/or complimentary, and is delivered with an engaging smile in a benign, inoffensive manner, then that has a far likelier chance of being met with a smile in return, than does the boorish, sexist remarks of your average neanderthal lout.

By this logic a woman walking through a high class establishment such as a university campus and the harassment she received would be entirely justified.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...assment-victim

'Class' has never really had anything to do with genuine manners or consideration for others, and being born into the aristocracy or even Royalty, is no guarantee of either 'good looks' or a charming personality - as any close inspection of our Royal Family or Peerage will confirm - so in this context 'High Class' is a misnomer. Especially since now, kids from all strata of society attend university. Additionally, one cannot be too specific in any post, but has to generalise to a degree.

In any event, I did not state or even intimate that making remarks to passing women should be the prerogative of good looking, intelligent, upper class males and should be 'accepted' without question. Boorish sexist remarks are threatening, uncalled for and constitute harassment, and Ignorant Louts are Ignorant Louts - whether they are called Billy Grimneck from Hull, or Algernon Thaddius Warbuck the Third from Heaton Square, Belgravia, and whether they are catcalling an innocent woman in the 3rd aisle of Netto, or whilst enjoying the contents of a Fortnum and Mason's picnic hamper while laying on the clipped grassy river bank at the Henley Regatta.

I did not defend any type of catcalling or harassment of women, and I did not deny that some women will be intimidated by such boorish behaviour. What I was pointing out in my post, was that it is a categorical overreaction because of this, to 'tar' males who may make -innocuous - comments in a friendly and non threatening manner to passing girls, with the 'same brush'.

Please read my post again and you will see that this is true, and that there was, therefore, no need for your response - which is completely off target - because I was not actually stating any of the things you have reacted to