ok - fair point - however i don't think that if i was investigating specific allegations of abuse of men by woman or other men i would make reference to abuse of women by men in my report UNLESS my terms of reference mandated such AND/OR i had evidence to suggest it had occured in the bdy i was investigating.
"Discredit" is a fairly strong term. I don't believe the report's writer deliberately lied or anything like that.
Once again, I am not criticising the report for not mentioning harassment of men by women in the context of the TSSA (though whether or not that says there was no harassment of that nature is another thing). I am criticizing it over its foreward that talks about sexual harassment etc. in a general sense in a manner that makes it clear the writer does not think of sexual harassment of men by women as something that happens or is as bad as sexual harassment of women by men.
It wasn't within her terms of reference, so ......
We don't know and it wasn't within the terms of reference so the report is of no assistance in finding out whether there were or not.
If I'd been commissioning the report I'd have wanted it to cover all types of harassment, if only to avoid any accusations of discrimination, bias or damage limitation.
What a ridiculous idea. The only accusations of bias are from men who have nothing to do with the report other than speak anonymously about their hurt feelings at a paragraph in it.
If you mean me, my feelings are not hurt but I am disappointed at the wording of that paragraph and narrow terms of reference of the inquiry. As I said upthread, I'd be much happier if the paragraph had been gender-neutral and the report confirmed that the list of cases mentioned was exhaustive.
