[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.

[Dylan16807]

> The problem is with male behavior.

I agree with that, I think. But those men do not automatically drag in all other men and only men as far as obligation to fix the problem.

> 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.

Nothing in that sentence is particular to women. Remember that I'm only talking about speaking up about the harassment of other people.

[camgunz]

> But those men do not automatically drag in all other men as far as obligation to fix the problem.

If not them then who? Or do you not agree that women aren't obligated to fix male problems? OR, are you going non-gender binary on me?

> Nothing in that sentence is particular to women.

Men are rarely punished for speaking up about harassment. Men are also rarely harassed, and there isn't an institutional, cultural, societal epidemic of men being sexually harassed in the workplace. I thought we were talking about men harassing women in the workplace re: the topic of the thread.

This is a "but what about the men" comment that, again, deliberately misses the point. Men aren't victims of systemic sexism. Yeah sometimes they're sexually harassed or raped, and that's all horrible and ought to be dealt with. But those events are separate from the institution of sexism that has oppressed women since the inception of the US. We're talking about a huge, entrenched social problem that disadvantages women, not about isolated incidents where men are victims.

> Remember that I'm only talking about speaking up about the harassment of other people.

"Other people" doesn't make a difference. I don't see why you think it would.

[Dylan16807]

>If not them then who? Or do you not agree that women aren't obligated to fix male problems? OR, are you going non-gender binary on me?

I think there are two reasonable answers.

1. The people that do the abusing are the only ones responsible.

2. The people that set society's expectations are partially responsible.

Group 1 is a subset of men. Group 2 is 99% of adults, though men have more responsibility because of how the patriarchy works.

I do not see any reasonable way to declare all men responsible and zero women responsible.

>Men are rarely punished for speaking up about harassment.

I'm going to have to ask for statistics about men and women speaking up about the harassment of third-party women.

>"but what about the men"

It's not meant to be. I'm not trying to ask for any sympathy for men. I'm completely ignoring any men that get harassed, because that's not the problem we're focusing on here.

>"Other people" doesn't make a difference. I don't see why you think it would.

I have no idea what you mean. I will assume my sentence was unclear and restate it. I am talking about a situation where Man A harasses Woman B, and then person C, who has significant resources they can use to help, does something about it. I think if person C has an obligation to help, they have it regardless of their gender.

Edit: Also the answer to "if not them but who" would be the police. (In an ideal world)