[MadSax]

Step 2: The parent absolutely did not blame the victim for simply being there.

Step 3: You're assuming the victim would necessarily feel shame by trying to help them deal with assholes, and you're also assuming that shame was the intended outcome of telling them to stand up/call out idiots in the midst of their idiocy.

[KirinDave]

Your first paragraph: the victim was blamed for not acting differently to a circumstance that they should NOT have had to deal with. Characterize this as you will, it doesn't change that fact. No accordance was offered for this. The response was deemed sub-optimal and later shamed.

I cannot parse your second paragraph. Victim helps "them"?

Also: I repeat. If your actions are indistinguishable from sexism they're sexism. Your intent doesn't matter. Your defense here is that you're reading the gp charitably.

[MadSax]

By standing up for one's self it's possible to both respect yourself and form respect between two or more people who were once quarreling. By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism. They'll hate her and she'll fear them, forever.

Someone strong enough of character would be able to withstand the initial stupidity and confront the perpetrators and convince them to stop. Should she have to do that? No, but maybe her actions could lead them to be more mature and they'd all respect each other, and the next woman would have that much better of an environment to go into.

By immediately coddling them, you are accomplishing the exact opposite of what you think are doing.

I think that's what the OP was trying to say, but I can't read minds so who knows.

[KirinDave]

Oh so, really your demand that we coddle that bunch of lousy and unprofessional folks in the workplace is in her best interests, because SHE shouldn't be coddled?

This seems arbitrary.

This is not some punishment game on reality TV. It's a workplace. Being professional with employees is the bare minimum. Even teenagers can do it. Why do you want to coddle these men?

[goldfire]

Let me see if I understand this argument (with the awareness that you are attempting to restate it and not directly advocate it yourself).

When someone is being subjected to abuse in what is supposed to be a professional setting, the correct strategy for them is to take matters into their own hands and probably begin a disruptive and draining conflict which they are almost certain to lose in the end because the deck is stacked against them. Under absolutely no circumstances should the victim ask for assistance, because that would demonstrate weakness and a lack of self-respect. If only the victim had better strength of character, they could put those assholes in their places and nothing like this would ever happen again.

I really don't think I can make myself see the world that way. I don't think I want to.

[KirinDave]

Indeed, and in the larger context it's a contradictory set of advice.

If she struggles, it'll be a "poor culture fit." At-will employment means it's very challenging to push back against your boss's toxic culture. But if she doesn't, she isn't "strong enough" for the industry.

The summary is: Get fired, get out, or shut up.

[MadSax]

More strawmen: nobody said to never ask for help, just to make a first effort to resolve it peacefully yourself, if possible.

[KirinDave]

Actally madsax, reading your post you make a pretty strong case for never asking for help.

> By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism

You say here that if at any point any authority figure (which you curiously include "parents" in the list of) is involved it will disqualify the subject of these treatments any hope of future respect. To name the torment as such is to condemn yourself to it.

I'm starting to think you may be using the phrase "strawman" in the more popular counter-factual sense than have a grasp of how the word is historically used. Because it sure seems here like you're saying, "Never go to an authority or appeal to the rules a group establishes because if you do, you forfeit all respect in perpetuity."

Maybe you didn't mean to say that. Maybe this didn't read like you intended it to. But it's not fair that you call foul on us for reading what you wrote and interpreting it within the scope you defined.