I WAS quite sad to read the letter from Richard Lucas (November 2). Being neither a gender warrior nor a feminist, nor any other variety of “ist”, I felt that if the ordinary, decent male of the species is made to feel unjustly intimidated, demonised even, then a lot of pleasure in life could disappear. Some of the pleasurable things I have experienced over the years still make me smile.

I remember walking along Edinburgh’s Grassmarket, probably in the late 1970s, when I was pinched on the derriere. Behind me was a schoolboy looking rather proud of himself. He grinned, I grinned and then we went on our respective ways and I felt good all day. I remember waiting for my husband to pay for his books in a Carlisle bookshop about 10 years ago and as I read the back cover of an interesting-looking book a very young man on the other side of the bookcase winked and smiled. I winked and smiled back. We carried on reading our books. Just this August, in a bus shelter at Duddingston, a young man said “you have lovely hair”. I thanked him and smiled. Then the bus came and we got aboard. None of those people will remember me now at all, but I remember them very clearly. They made me smile. I would be sad if men felt they had to stop acting in these small pleasurable ways. Perhaps the bottom-pinching might not be appreciated in these times, though.

There have been occasions when things were not pleasurable; I too had worked in a large company for some years and know about such things as the hand on your bottom. A good slap sorted that one out. For sexist remarks I just stuck my nose in the air and ignored them. At 19, in the late 1950s, and very shy, I had to pass a building site every day to the wolf-whistling of the men there. I sorted that one out by stopping, curtseying, waving, smiling and calling “thank you” and walking on. After that there was no more whistling, just smiles and waves. There have been some things which were very unpleasant but I have always sorted them out myself.

Good men know what is acceptable behaviour so I hope that they don’t all feel unable to be natural, friendly and, in my case, make me smile. I am quite good at winking too.

Thelma Edwards,

Old Comrades Hall,

Hume, Kelso.

I READ with increasing bemusement the multiplication of stories about “inappropriate” sexual advances. Some situations are certainly difficult, and certainly require formal action. Elsewhere, any girl worth her salt that is, most girls) knows an armoury of effective defences against unwelcome approaches, from mocking hilarity to a swift knee to a sensitive target.

Things are no doubt different for men; in the course of my working life I was never inappropriately approached; should I be relieved, or disappointed? Mind you, one of my secretaries, a happily-married Mancunian lass, more than once told me she liked Scotsmen: what should I have made of this dodgy remark? A fit of the vapours, or a complaint to the Personnel Department? Flirting used to be a normal and enjoyable part of life in the workplace, but now, thanks to complainers from yesteryear, is engaged in only perilously. The gaiety of the nation is under threat.

Donald Buchanan,

75 Antonine Road, Bearsden.

YOUR correspondent William Scott (Letters, November 3) started off by positively acknowledging the efforts of women who are no longer prepared to put up with inappropriate behaviour as practised by some men. However, Mr Scott seems to contradict himself later by suggesting that “the affectionate hands on the waist or admiring touch of the hair” are not inappropriate. These practices are not appropriate in the workplace environment, and it has to be asked who is it that considers them to be affectionate or admiring?

Mr Scott refers to the changing rules of engagement. Again, I would ask, who set out these rules of engagement in the first place?

Eileen Michael

12 Woodend Drive, Paisley.

FRANKLY, I don’t care what skeletons are in Sir Michael Fallon’s cupboard. The important fact is he believed that if and when they became public knowledge it wouldl render his position as Cabinet Minister untenable. On the other hand he sees no reason why he can’t continue to be an MP. That infers that Sir Michael believes the standard of behaviour expected of an MP is less critical than that of a minister. Now that mindset sums up politics and politicians.

David J Crawford,

1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.