This pompous arse wins Hollaback Australia Douchehound Commenter of the Week. The prize? Nothing more or less than our eternal mocking and disdain. Posted here in full for your, erm, edification.
This story does not fit into your mandate of reporting sexual harassment in Australian public spaces.
This story is also quite different from the other ones in some very important ways.
(Let’s put aside the question of who took the photograph and concentrate on the claim that the men were sexually harassing.)
It happens in a London pub. As well as being within a different cultural context that is harder to judge by Australian audiences, a pub in western societies is a private premise that is an adult only sexualised social space. In these social contexts it is acceptable for strangers to approach each other and to flirt sexually. Pubs and clubs are the only social places I can think of off-hand that have this role. It is important that there are these social spaces because boy and girl (and other combinations of romance) have to meet somewhere – and if workplaces and public places are to be non-sexual then there needs to be other places that are sexual.
Because pubs and clubs are private premises, only those adults who want to be in these sexualised social spaces need go there. People need not attend if they believe that the only appropriate sexual space for a man and woman is the privacy of their bedroom after they are married. Cultural groups who do believe this usually have other social mechanisms such as arranged marriages so that boy and girl meet. For most people within western societies though, pubs and clubs have an important social role as an appropriate place for potentially sexual meetings.
If the story was about a barmaid, manager or cleaner being harassed then it could be a story about a workplace. But it is not. It is one woman’s report of a group of women in a pub as patrons. I assume these adult women had reasonable social intelligence and knew a pub at night is a sexualised social space.
I do not accept your dichotomy of it being a choice only between meeting at the pub or staying at home. It seems to me that the women had many choices of less sexual and non-sexual places to meet. They could have met at a restaurant, the movies, a picnic in the park, a coffee shop, a private party at someone’s house, a library, a workplace, an open public place, a pin-ball parlour, go kart racing, pistol shooting, water slides, church hall,…and yet they chose to go to a busy London pub at night.
Asking why they chose to go there credits them with moral agency for their own actions, and reveals them as something other than the childish ingénues that Caz wishes to portray.
So my question about why the women were there is not the same sort of question as asking why a woman was at a bustop on the way home from work, why a child was in a classroom, or why a woman chose one type of work over another. It is a question about why these women chose to go to a private sexual social space where it was appropriate for male strangers to interact sexually with them. It is a question about their role in the social interactions that Caz later portrays as sexual harassment from an endless stream of wankers. It is a question about the plausibility and bias of Caz’s report. It is a question about judging whether the men were behaving reasonably within a particular social and cultural context.
It is a question about when showing personally identifiable photos of men labelled douchebag, pillock, asshat, and wanker and claiming that they are sexual abusers is reasonable and when it becomes an abuse that the women are committing against the men.
As I said, this story is very different from the other ones in some very important ways.
 or rather, “Attempted Commenter”. The shiny new comments policy and posting guide is now up.