[blackrose]

> or is this a one way deal?

FFS, dude. Men hold the vast majority of power in our society. No cards are stacked against them. No old fashioned norms are still levied on them everytime a woman speaks to them. They aren't constantly reminded by our culture to be gentlemen or look handsome or bring home the bacon or do anything they don't want to. To say "think of the men!" here is either willfully ignorant or just being a dick.

[xor1]

>Men hold the vast majority of power in our society.

Power isn't based on gender, it's based on wealth. Do you think abuse of power will suddenly end once the majority of wealthy individuals are women instead of men?

[blackrose]

Power is enacted through multifarious means, with wealth being one of them. Wealth isn't a requisite for power. Generally in the US, positions of power are held by men, because of (or in spite of) an interconnected system of laws, norms, and a history of (generally) men telling people what to do. And those gender-based ideas enacted in laws and norms and our culture have percolated through our society to affect everyone in ways we often can't detect.

The point is that yes, for these reasons and many others, we should "believe women when they report harassment in the workplace."

[xor1]

>Power is enacted through multifarious means, with wealth being one of them. Wealth isn't a requisite for power

Name the other sources of power in the United States in the year 2017. Whatever you can come up with, none of it is as significant as wealth.

>The point is that yes, for these reasons and many others, we should "believe women when they report harassment in the workplace."

You did not answer my question. Do you think abuse of power will suddenly end once the majority of wealthy individuals are women instead of men?

[blackrose]

It could be you or your family having connections to powerful people. Being famous. But what's important as it pertains to our conversation: being in an authoritative position, e.g. a teacher, law enforcement officer, manager, or company executive. All of these people can have an influence, or "power," over others -- including, but not limited to, women.

As your question doesn't really have anything to do with our debate, I respectfully decline to answer. It was nice talking.

[erikpukinskis]

I am extremely pro feminist, but I believe this particular tactic is one of feminists most self destructive anti-patterns.

It's one thing to say women have substantially more cards stacked against them on average. But it's another to say men have no cards stacked against them.

Your position is particularly harmful to feminist aims, because one of the core feminist teachings that we need to get through is this:

Don't assume a woman is a certain way because of stereotypes. Between group differences are smaller than within group differences.

Women can be less sporty than men on average, while still almost half of women are more athletic than the average man.

Similarly, women can have more cards stacked against them on average, while still nearly half of men have more cards stacked against them than the average woman.

The place we need to get to, which I believe intersectional feminism advocates, is to understand each person and situation individually, and consider that there are always many axes of oppression operation simultaneously.

To address your assertion directly: that a male victim of sexual harassment has no cards against him, consider this:

The flip side of "boys will be boys", a meme used to let rapists go unpunished, is "boys must be boys", a meme that men always want sex and therefore if he had a drunken hookup he must have wanted it. This goes far beyond the less accepted (though still frighteningly effective) meme of "she was drunk so she must have wanted it". Women are not presumed to want sex all the time.

I consider that a card stacked against men. We have precious little shared framework for thinking and talking about the times we don't want sex. It's not equivalent to the deck of cards that is patriarchy, but it's a card.

I think feminism will profit greatly from taking a stance on how people should be treated better, rather your stance, which is a stance on which people should be treated better (women).

I still believe WATM is usually a derailing technique used to distract from discussions of women's rights, I just don't believe that in the current climate it benefits the feminist movement to respond to them as such. It doesn't take much effort to say "sure, men too" and doing so reinforces other key feminist rhetoric.

[blackrose]

I was mostly trying to point out how ridiculous camelite's argument sounded. I thought maybe we should instead have a serious conversation about the events leading up to Uber's current troubles, and how they reflect on our society and our own individual mindsets. But apparently this isn't the place for that.

Anyway, yeah, of course everyone has different circumstances. I didn't mean literally no men, just as the grandparent comment didn't mean literally believe all women. I was speaking generally in order to be comprehendible to a guy speaking generally and hypothetically.

[metaphorm]

do you honestly believe that there aren't difficult and often unrealistic social pressures put on men?

[blackrose]

Generally speaking, as a group, yes -- especially when compared to the social pressures put on women. Yes, that's changing, but we still have a way to go.

Happy to hear any difficult and unrealistic social pressures you think we regularly face today.

[novia]

For those of you wondering where blackrose is coming from here, this youtube video might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD6z64aov3o

[metaphorm]

I don't want to get into a back and forth with you on this topic so I will politely decline your request.

I just wanted to say that it seems to me like you are speaking about broad generalizations and that is not the same thing as speaking about real people or individuals. Also, that your generalized idea of men is based on the premise that that general man is a wealthy and powerful person, but this is not the case for most men.

[mhermher]

Now you sound willfully ignorant too.

[dang]

Please don't post uncivilly, even when others have also been breaking the rules.

[camelite]

> Men hold the vast majority of power in our society. No cards are stacked against them.

If you "believe women who report sexual harassment", and more specifically, if you believe women who report sexual harassment in "less clear cut" scenarios than Susan Fowlers, then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent. How much comfort the fact that other people with the same genetalia tend to fill the boardrooms provides to the accused, I will leave to your imagination.

> They aren't constantly reminded by our culture to be gentlemen or look handsome or bring home the bacon or do anything they don't want to.

Men aren't reminded constantly by their culture to do things they don't want to do? Where do you live, because it sounds like paradise to me.

> To say "think of the men!" here is either willfully ignorant or just being a dick.

It's neither. It was an attempt to puncture what I saw as misguided rhetoric. A good old WhatAboutTheMen is an efficient approach because the commenter's default reasoning for not "just believing" men would likely mirror mine for not "just believing" women. And so I don't have to spell it out for them.

[zipppy]

I'm not going to nitpick about any individual discussion points you guys have going on, but I'll chime in to say that your approach to thinking about men/women in our society seems...disingenuous.

We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. That seems to be what you're doing. But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.

[camelite]

disingenous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically

I'll do you the honor of not questioning your sincerity without even making an effort to address any specific thing you said. Seems like an almost...pusillanimous...thing to do.

> We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting.

I am not suggesting a solution to the existence of injustice, which is what a utopia would entail. I am merely pointing out that simplistic rhetoric about believing accusors will not solve the problem.

> But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.

And there we part ways. Adding up all the bad stuff that happens to one group, comparing it to all the bad stuff that happens to another group, and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles. I know you probably don't recognise that as what you're doing, but your reasoning is far too simplistic given the complexities of the problem.

[zipppy]

I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you.

edit: fine, apparently people get downvoted if they're not pedantic.

"and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles."

Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles?

[camelite]

> I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you.

There's a word for that, you know.

> Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles?

If we both agree that we want fewer incidents of harass ment, a higher fraction of harassers punished, fewer false allegations, and fewer incidents of innocent people being punished... then that's a pretty complicated problem, right? Now multiply that by the number of potential harassers and harassees in the world. My "work" is simply the observation that a complicated problem isn't solvable by simplistic rhetoric. Of course, given the climate, that spiraled, as it does.

[parzivalm]

Seems to me that the some of whom will invariably be innocent will be significantly low.

Saying "just believing" isn't the best phrase the OP could have picked but neither was your rhetoric. It just contributes to the divide between men and women.

[camelite]

My rhetoric has the advantage of being true.

[xor1]

>Men aren't reminded constantly by their culture to do things they don't want to do? Where do you live, because it sounds like paradise to me.

blackrose is exclusively thinking of rich and powerful men when framing his argument.

[blackrose]

I'm neither rich nor powerful, and I don't feel pressure to do anything outside of ensure my own survival. I mean, I could get a girl pregnant and still have a hell of a lot less to worry about than she does.

[edit: removed paragraph]

[nilkn]

> you're just a selfish dick.

This is a lot of aggression, and it makes me think that you are just as closed to alternative viewpoints as those with whom you are discussing this topic. I think you should completely re-evaluate your approach to debating this in the future.

[blackrose]

I see what you're saying, but I've laid out many other, less aggressive points and remained open to any good counter-argument.

I'll take the downvotes for this, but I think certain stances people are spouting on this thread are aggressively perpetuating the poor societal values I've been arguing against. They're aggressively playing down the consequences of their sexist mentality and normalizations. And because I'm a not-impoverished white dude who doesn't worry about being persecuted for my opinions, I expressed them.

(Also, the "selfish dick" part isn't meant to be taken personally. Many people are selfish, and own up to it, and wear the badge proudly. That's great. But to argue for sexism under some pretense of a noble cause is bullshit.)

[xor1]

I didn't have a chance to read this before you deleted it, but let's get one thing out of the way immediately: I'm not a white male, yet you seem to be attacking me (and others who think you are doing more harm than good) on this presumption.

You need to understand that the way you engage others on the internet is harmful to your viewpoints. You honestly come off as hostile and even childish. You're fabricating complete strawmen and attacking them. I honestly have to question whether or not you have some sort of personality disorder, given how upset you get over things that the people you are attacking have not said or even implied. You also seem to be extremely self-loathing, and you want to project that onto others.

[blackrose]

> You honestly come off as hostile and even childish. You're fabricating complete strawmen and attacking them.

> You also seem to be extremely self-loathing, and you want to project that onto others.

These are funny sequences of statements.

Anyway I wasn't attacking you; I was arguing against the ideas presented, that we should "think about the men!" first when we're discussing women reporting sexual assault. The paragraph I deleted implied that anyone who holds this worldview either hasn't ever listened to a woman or is self-centered. I could've put it better, but frankly I was tired of arguing.

And I was fixing the record because you said "blackrose is exclusively thinking of rich and powerful men when framing his argument." Which is false, and I believe I offered good evidence for in my simple example.

[dang]

Your second paragraph breaks the site guidelines. It's not ok to argue like that on HN, especially on divisive topics. If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

[blackrose]

Thanks dang. Removed.

[dang]

Thanks!

[blackrose]

> then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent.

This is really a stretch in logic, and the oxymoronic "some of whom will invariably be innocent" gives away your motives on this topic.

Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace. It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better (even ours, the men!). But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction.

[camelite]

> This is really a stretch in logic

It's not even a tiny weeny little stretch of logic. It is self-evident to anybody who is thinking clearly about the matter.

> Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace.

No. Wrong. Parent comment said "believe women who...", not "give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment". Do you understand how those two statements are different? Your one doesn't even make sense. Crediblity is "the quality of being believable or worthy of trust". Credence is probably the word you were thinking of. I don't think I'm smarter than you, but these sorts of mistakes do go to show that you are not thinking clearly.

> It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better

Not the falsely accused. They are men too, right?

> But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction.

The suggestion is not mild. My reaction was not hostile. My arguments were not misleading. I'm not contributing to the problem of some men being sexual harassers, except perhaps at some absurdly theoretically removed degree, which would leave me damned for pretty much any I comment I could make. I'm not encouraging manly, or even "manly" behaviour. My comments don't necessitate women's blog posts, if by that you are referring to Fowlers call-out. The latter is in fact an absurd charge against me on a personal level, as I'm sure you would recognize after mature reflection. That I necessitate company culture course-correction is likewise absurd, though flattering.

[blackrose]

> Parent comment said "believe women who..."

Luckily we have the power of inference and ability to understand what statements mean even when people use different words -- unless, of course, we have an axe to grind, which is what I'm seeing here in your comments.

Your counter arguments haven't convinced me. But it was nice discussing this. Hopefully others will see this thread and make their own decisions.

[camelite]

I can see you're trying to rise above your instincts here, and that is a good effort. However, you should have left out the parting shot about the axe.