[_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.)

[camgunz]

> 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.

You don't get to tell victims they have an obligation to work against victimization. It doesn't matter what they're a victim of, it doesn't matter what position they're in, and it doesn't matter how easy it would be for them to do. Victimization is not the victim's fault, it's the perpetrator's.

Amount of harassment is relevant, because the amount is enormous. There are huge drawbacks to spending all of your time addressing harassment in the workplace. Most women don't aim for professional success so they can spend all their time calling out bad male behavior.

Fundamentally, our difference is that you are equating women in positions of power with men. Their experiences are vastly different; women must overcome far more obstacles than men in order to achieve the same success. You can't then say they're equally obligated to fight against bad male behavior. They've been doing it their whole life. It's up to men and the male community to fix our own behavior, and to make it right. Women simply have no obligation here, no matter how powerful they are or how easy it would be for them to act.

[Dylan16807]

You're not replying to what I said. I'm not talking about victims.

The obligation might not be quite equal for various reasons, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that suffering you face in situation X removes your moral obligations in unrelated situation Y. If there is an obligation for empowered bystanders to help, it applies to everyone.

[camgunz]

I'll endeavor to reply directly to what you said.

Let's use a hypothetical (I love these). There's a female CEO of a company, and one of her female employees is sexually harassed by one of her male employees. Is there an obligation for the company to have a sexual harassment policy and for it to be carried out? Absolutely. Is the female CEO ultimately responsible for this? Yes. If this process fails is she ultimately responsible? Of course. This is the law in the US.

My argument is that you're focusing entirely on the wrong thing. There's not some kind of crazy problem where women in power are overlooking sexual harassment. The problem is that there's an epidemic of men sexually harassing women. In that context, focusing on the female CEO's obligations is deliberately missing the point. It's the same thing as when there's a discussion about sexual harassment, to remind everyone that something like 5% of workplace sexual harassment claims are made by males. Sure, that's a problem, but it's not a problem that holds back an entire class of people, it isn't rooted in centuries of discrimination and oppression, and it isn't pervasive in every institution from schools to courthouses. The problem is with male behavior. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I'll keep saying it.

===

I'll try and crystallize it even further.

> 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

No. Oftentimes women who stand up against harassment are harshly punished for it. So even when they are in positions where they can, "without much risk" stop harassment, they won't, because they remember how it went last time. They're victims. Promotions and positioning don't change that at all.

But it's important to say again that many women are impressively brave, and even in the face of consequences speak truth to power. But again, that's always their choice, and you don't get to condemn them because you don't understand the concept of victimization.

EDIT:

I just saw this article: https://medium.com/@katylevinson/sexism-in-tech-don-t-ask-me.... You, and everyone else should read it. It's fucked up.

[_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.