[Dylan16807]

I don't see why it's massively more the responsibility of men that don't harass than women that don't harass. It really is a societal problem, involving everybody, like the murder rate.

>could say that

People will use anything as excuses. Don't give in to them, and don't use their conclusions to make arguments about the premises.

[_bfhp]

You use the word "societal". But how are women, who make up more of any human "society" than men, contributing at all to the "problem"? Can you give any examples, or a general idea?

I'm not "giving in" to anything, why is this about me? Do you know what I meant by the word "we"?

[Dylan16807]

You're giving in to the (abstract but real) person that says "If it were, even by a tiny degree, and men continue to hurt women, we could say that women just didn't do a good enough job changing men." That person is wrong and terrible. That person will demonstrate that a particular woman has the smallest iota of responsibility and then blame them 100%. Don't listen to that person. Don't use their flawed argument to support your argument.

>But how are women, who make up more of any human "society" than men, contributing at all to the "problem"? Can you give any examples, or a general idea?

Non-abusing women and non-abusing men both sometimes act as enablers for abusers. By not speaking out. By not firing bad actors. Etc. The abusers are directly to blame, and everyone is indirectly to blame. There is no sane way to conclude that all men but only men are to blame.

[_bfhp]

I'm not saying that they are right, I am saying their argument would work; in fact there is rich historical documentation of that exact argument working, in all of the common situations of male violence against women: rape, domestic abuse, etc. We can find court records including the attire of women as relevant facts to the violence of the man. We can see how many female victims of male domestic violence are asked "why didn't you leave" "why didn't you try to deescalate?"

[Dylan16807]

If that argument was blocked, they would come up with a different argument.

Don't deny women agency in the interests of logically proving bigots wrong. They don't care. They make up excuses.

Anyone that's been in a position of power where they could have stopped harassment without much risk, and didn't, is a part of the problem. This includes many men, and many women. It is important to shame harassers as much as possible.

[camgunz]

You don't understand how often women experience harassment. My ex-girlfriend used to walk to work from where we lived. It was about a 15 minute walk. She experienced street harassment an average of 3 times every time she walked to or from her job. Is she supposed to cross the street and have a long talk with someone every time that happens?

EDIT:

Since I can't reply below (submitting too fast, somehow...), I'll reply here:

I'm using her experience as an example. Every woman in a position of power experiences a steady stream of harassment and microaggressions pretty much her entire life, because she's a woman. It's hard for men to believe (it certainly was for me) because our experience is so different. No one yells at me out in public. No one. No one follows me down the street and into a coffee shop just to leer at me.

You're arguing that a woman in a position of power is obligated to shame harassers. I'm saying it happens so often that women often have to choose whether to be the sexual harassment police, or work in the career of choosing. Whatever their decision, you can't condemn them either way. You certainly don't get to make that choice for them.

[Dylan16807]

I don't think she's in a position of power with no threat of retribution there.

Edit to your edit: They're no more obligated to do it than all the men passively letting harassment happen. And I can lightly condemn society as a whole if I want to.

Also, the amount of harassment a person faces isn't really connected to my argument, because I'm talking about harassment people are in a good position to stop, which is almost always harassment of others. (Because if there are no drawbacks to stopping harassment of yourself, you'd already have done it.)

[_bfhp]

"If that argument was blocked, they would come up with a different argument." And? What difference does it make? If we disarmed and abolished nuclear weapons, we'd use non-nuclear weapons, but that says nothing about the legitimacy of disarmament campaigns. I don't think you are engaging honestly and genuinely.

[Dylan16807]

But you're the one letting the nuclear argument go uncorrected. You're trying to block it not by saying that the logic is incorrect but that the very idea that women share in creating all of society's roles is flawed. I agree, kill the nuclear argument. But kill it by pointing out that it is wrong, not by denying women agency. Realize that you can't compromise while fighting that argument, because they have a hundred more.

I don't know how I can convince you I'm being genuine...

[anthonyb]

Because those things are usually irrelevant, have been tried to no effect or will make the situation worse. Women get raped wearing tracksuit pants and a hoodie, and leaving a domestic violence situation is often the trigger for more violence (including murder) when the abuser catches up.

[camgunz]

Because it's male behavior.

[Dylan16807]

It's also white behavior, black behavior, human behavior, woman behavior...

[_bfhp]

(Full disclosure: I'm a white male) Statistics overwhelmingly document sexual violence (and all violence, by the way) as male behavior and historical record shows that the ideological and individual defenses of it is also overwhelmingly male. Your sentence is non-sequitur in this context.

[camgunz]

The patriarchy is white, male, and oppresses members of other groups (black men, white women, etc.) Can women sexually harass other women? Absolutely. Is there a huge societal problem where women value other women based solely on their appearance and ability to please men, reducing their opportunities for education, employment, earning, and general success? No. White men hold the cards in US society, and it's the case wherever you look: JDs and MBAs granted, PhDs granted, wages earned, wealth accumulated, income from small and large businesses, statehouses, Congress, the presidency, the board room, Hollywood, etc. etc. etc. You really just can't equate one woman sexually harassing another with an entire institution putting bricks on the heads of half its population from birth.

[Dylan16807]

>The patriarchy is white, male, and oppresses members of other groups (black men, white women, etc.)

And yet you grouped all races together for some reason.

Edit: To elaborate: The current power structure is bad, but it's not a simple male vs. female thing.

[camgunz]

> And yet you grouped all races together for some reason.

Oh you mean when I said "male behavior" instead of "white male behavior".

Social issues in the US are complicated. Can black men benefit from the patriarchy, do they have some privilege because they're male, even though they're black? Yes. Do white women have some privilege solely because they are white? Yes. Are black men or white women part of the patriarchy? No. The patriarchy is a white, male institution that oppresses anyone that isn't.

White women can be racist against minorities, but they can't be sexist against men. Black men can be sexist towards women, but they can't be racist against minorities. This is because racism and sexism are cultural and institutional. They can be rude, they can be discriminatory, but they can't bring cultural and institutional pressures to bear on members of the oppressing group. That power is reserved solely for members of the oppressing group.

> woman behavior...

Sexual harassment is almost entirely male behavior, white, black, etc. It's up to men to stop it. Women have no obligation here. The incidence of women sexually harassing each other is so low, it has practically no social consequences. Therefore, it's not a societal problem we have to fix, and this suggestion is a strawman.

[Dylan16807]

Harasser implies male. Male does not imply harasser.

If you want to talk about the people that decide to harass, use "harassers". Harassers have an obligation to stop.

If you want to talk about how society influences people, use "society". Everyone influences what is seen as acceptable.

Men do not have special control over other men. Saying the fix is "up to men" is inaccurate no matter what you mean. It's either insulting by implying that all men are harassers, or it's insulting by implying that women have no power in shaping society.

So if you want to talk about how men have somewhat more obligation in shaping behavior because of power structures, that sounds like a very interesting conversation. If you want to tell me women have no power/responsibility at all, that's just obnoxious.