Feminist theory has defined harassment in such a way that the accusation is itself proof of the offense. Harassment is any action, picture, word, or deed that causes another person to scream "I'm offended." There is no defense against the accusation because a person's claim of offense is proof of the offensive nature of the action, picture, word, or deed. The accused is left with no recourse except a possible strategy of confession and avoidance. They have to confess their evil deed, apologize, and pledge never to commit the crime again.
We've seen the results of this play out in the past year. Larry Summers caused some bimbo to get the vapors, and had to run around saying how sorry he was. He should have said, "I made a statement as to the possibility of innate sexual differences. This is a subject for scientific inquiry and possible refutation. It is expected that members of the Harvard faculty are capable of making intellectual responses to statements of opinion. To do otherwise is to abandon the principle of free inquiry and to act in an infantile manner." Then he should have shut up.
When Danish cartoonists offended a few Muslims, many countries simply caved, and said they found the cartoons offensive. How about this statement instead: "We are not Muslims. We are under no obligation, outside of courtesy, to be inoffensive in our portrayal of Muslims, Islam, or Mohammed. The current disturbances do nothing to remedy the negative view of Muslims, Islam, and Mohammed held by many. Islam and Muslims must operate in Europe as other religions do, and sharia law should be regarded in the same light as canon law for Roman Catholics, and Judaic law for Jews. In other words it coexists with the civil law and regulates the religious life of the community. In no case does it supplant the civil law."
What links these together is the relinquishment of the masculine attitude that says "Here I stand. I can do no other," and that contends sharply and with passion in the field of ideas. That attitude has been replaced with a simpering desire to be inoffensive, unless the party to be offended falls within the unprivileged groups of the religious, the Caucasian, the middle class, the Southerner, the Jew, and so on. Then all the gloves are off and Harvard professors can vent their feelings about the Israeli lobby, or insane Congresscritters can punch white cops, and whine about prejudicial attitudes.
Intellectual toughness that is ready to contend with any and all comers and to offer two counter-arguments for every argument offered has essentially been banished as a result of the feminist agenda that has fostered the culture of whine and complaint, and respect for feelings, as long as your group is recognized as having feelings.
When we gave up this intellectual combativeness and succumbed to the feminist mistake we gave up the ability to contend with Islamofascism and its adherents. We have had to render lip service to Islam as a religion of peace when jihad drips from nearly every sura. We got our bowels in an uproar over false rumors of a flushed Koran, when we should simply have said that the Koran is a book and we treat books with respect, but we do not worship the Koran, nor do we regard it as being dictated by God himself.
Feminism has been a disaster that has essentially cut off our cojones and has rendered us incapable of responding with force and vigor to the challenges that confront us. It is time to reclaim our cojones, and assert ourselves once again so that we may not be lead into dhimmitude.