[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.