Guardian Writer Outraged By Sexual Non-Harassment

Even an experienced student of leftist pathology such as myself can occasionally be surprised by just how angry leftists get about people minding their own business.

Here's the latest candidate, Laura Bates, feminazi extraordinaire, enraged by the thought of men aggressively and with malice aforethought..... having no interactions with women at all. 

At this point I'm picturing John Cleese's Frenchman in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail':  Now go away or I shall ignore you a second time.

Besides, I am reliably informed that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle so, you know, swim along Princess!

At this point, you may be thinking 'hey, isn't she the kind of witch who complains about harassment any time a guy so much as looks in her general direction'? 

Yes, yes, she is. In fact, that very article includes a link to another writer whining about 'street harassment' (i.e. member of the lesser sex daring to speak to a princess without written permission in triplicate). Now here's a group of men who aren't harassing, talking to or even acknowledging women in any way... and that's bad too!

I guess what we have her is a lemon-sucking version of Goldilocks: she wants men that don't hit on women too much, or too little, but just the right amount. Either that or it's Schrodinger's Stud, a guy who simultaneously hits on and doesn't hit on women.

Which is actually close to the truth, of course. Schrodinger's Cat sits there patiently, existing in both states right up until his box is actually opened. That's what these hags want: men waiting until the exact moment they're required and then immediately performing whatever service is asked of them with no consideration whatsoever for their own needs or wants.

If you think sexism is a real thing, then that's a thing that's surely sexist.

That's what's really underlying all this. Hence we get paragraphs like this:

It started with rumours: women reporting that men in their offices had suddenly started declining meetings with them or were insisting on leaving the door open. A human resources consultant reported executives telling her that they would no longer get into an elevator alone with a woman. Suddenly, it began to snowball – story after story of men abruptly cancelling business lunches or avoiding women they had previously mentored.

And? Why exactly would men put themselves in harm's way? 

Hey, if talking to a woman in the street is a dreadful imposition, what is the demand that men should be all but forced to have lunch with women?

Just for the sake of this stupid argument, what's the quid pro quo here? Do women have any corresponding  responsibilities to men? At all?

In fact the evil cow can't even keep her story straight. Here's she is at one point complaining about the reaction to MeToo:

Critics claimed that the movement was a pitchfork mob: a “witch-hunt” designed to topple men from their jobs and lives, without so much as an attempt at due process.

Well, yeah! Notably she not only can't explain why that's not true, but only four paragraphs later she has this to say about a doctor worried about false accusations:

His apparent implication that such accusations are simply random, based on no wrongdoing whatsoever, went unchallenged in the piece.

So it's not a witch hunt, but even if you're innocent, you still must have done something to be accused in the first place, am I right girls? 

Reminder: we are in a world where you can get fired for making the Corporate Mean Girls 'uncomfortable'. 

Who - any man, let alone someone who's spent years building a medical career - would risk dealing with a bunch of evil lunatics like this?