>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.
I'm not "giving in" to anything, why is this about me? Do you know what I meant by the word "we"?
>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.
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.
I don't know how I can convince you I'm being genuine...
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
> 1. The people that do the abusing are the only ones responsible.
> 2. The people that set society's expectations are partially responsible.
Men are responsible for nearly all workplace harassment, and white men have set society's expectations. The standard of beauty in our society is set by what white men find attractive. The standard of dress, hygiene, speech, appearance and behavior is as well. Notice how all the "workplace appropriate" hairstyles are traditionally white hairstyles, for example. Try getting a job with dreadlocks, or if you don't speak the white dialect of English, or if you can't afford a suit.
It's up to members of the patriarchy to acknowledge our privilege, and speak out about these issues that exist in our own community. You can feel indignant about having never harassed a woman and yet still being responsible for the bad behavior of other men. But it's nothing like the harassment women face, and to continually focus on it is entitled.
Or in your own terms:
1. The people who do the abusing (harassment) are likely not the best actors to fix the problem of harassment
2. White men are the ones who set society's expectations
> I do not see any reasonable way to declare all men responsible and zero women responsible.
I feel like you've ignored practically all of my responses to you.
Are you talking about a hypothetical female CEO (or something similar)? Already addressed.
Are you talking about addressing street or workplace harassment of a third-party, like a bystander? Already addressed by my example of my ex-girlfriend experiencing street harassment. The reason she doesn't engage in these things is that she's been physically stalked by groups of men, multiple times, after calling them out. She didn't expect that to happen. There's no way for her to rationally gauge whether or not she "could have stopped harassment without much risk", because the last time she did that, she was put in a situation where she unexpectedly feared for her life. Many, many women have similar stories. Sometimes when women speak up about harassment, they get shot. There is no way to rationally gauge risk in these circumstances. Harassment is violent behavior.
Speaking up for a third-party woman makes no difference in this situation, which is why I keep saying third-party doesn't matter.
> I'm going to have to ask for statistics about men and women speaking up about the harassment of third-party women.
Third-party doesn't matter. But I will point you to the EEOC's charge statistics: http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm
You have to make a leap to get there though; the vast majority of sex discrimination charges are filed by women, and you can't file a retaliation charge unless you've first alleged sex discrimination. I admit the data isn't perfect, but to deny it would be disingenuous.
But I'll also ask you: do you think men are frequently retaliated against for speaking up about the harassment of women? Is this really something I should have to find evidence to dispel?
> I think if person C has an obligation to help, they have it regardless of their gender.
I understand the hypothetical you're making completely. If person C is a woman, she has no obligation whatsoever. It doesn't matter what her job is or what resources she has. She has no way of ascertaining risk in that situation. She also has no obligation to report the incident after the fact. Women are punished heavily for reporting harassment, as the EEOC charge statistics show. Women are forced out of school and their jobs for reporting harassment. Often times third-party women themselves are harassed by the person they reported, to say nothing of the onslaught of harassment they can experience from third parties. Filing sexual harassment complaints in Silicon Valley can get you blacklisted. The mythical situation you're conjuring where a woman can stop harassment when she sees it without risk to herself or others simply doesn't exist. It's an elaborate strawman.
===
Police can't bring about cultural and social change. They can punish harassment, but they can't stop it from happening. If this were how law enforcement worked, the US wouldn't lead the west in incarceration.
Sort of. I'm ignoring the parts that are building on others. The problem is we disagree on fundamental principles.
As best I understand it, the basis of your argument is that white men have set society's expectations, so they have all the responsibility.
As best I understand it, the basis of my argument is that everyone in society (unevenly) sets society's expectations, so they all (unevenly) share responsibility.
There's no way to reconcile those two.
----------
If you want comments on specific points I'll make some, but please realize everything after this line is much less important than what's above it.
>Are you talking about a hypothetical female CEO (or something similar)? Already addressed.
Sorry, I got confused by your CEO argument because you suddenly mentioned harassment by women, that was me reading too fast, sorry. But now I'm more confused. You say the female CEO is responsible, then you keep repeating that no women are responsible.
When it comes to a woman walking down the street, I keep largely ignoring it because someone walking down the street has no particular power. A non-harassing man calling them out is also at risk of being stalked and jumped.
>But I'll also ask you: do you think men are frequently retaliated against for speaking up about the harassment of women? Is this really something I should have to find evidence to dispel?
Probably not, but that's because nobody reports the harassment of others to the extent that they should. The victims have to file, and then they get retaliated against.
Victims get punished for reporting harassment, and that's terrible, and that's mostly women, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of how everyone around the harassment should act. Because in a group of 20 people, even if all the women get harassed once, they're the bystander 90% of the time.
>Women are punished heavily for reporting harassment, as the EEOC charge statistics show.
I don't think you have shown sufficient evidence that women reporting the harassment of others are punished heavily, and also that they are disproportionately punished compared to men.
I seriously have no idea if men are punished as much. I want to know. I would expect a slight bias but for all I know men are 50x as able to report harassment without being retaliated against. But it needs evidence.
> As best I understand it, the basis of my argument is that everyone in society (unevenly) sets society's expectations, so they all (unevenly) share responsibility.
> There's no way to reconcile those two.
Sure there is: one of us is wrong :). I'm happy to focus on this part if you like, but I'll do so at the end.
===
> "CEO Stuff"
There are different levels of responsibility and accountability. A CEO, male or female, has legal obligations. Your argument is that women with means have a moral obligation to stop harassment if there is little or no risk to them, otherwise they're complicit. Moral obligations are different than legal obligations for many reasons, but specifically in our discussion, a moral obligation implies responsibility for the situation. I think you agree because you argue that women who don't stop harassment in these cases are "part of the problem". I disagree entirely. Nothing a woman could do would make them "part of the problem", because the problem is male behavior. By definition, women are excluded.
>> But I'll also ask you: do you think men are frequently retaliated against for speaking up about the harassment of women? Is this really something I should have to find evidence to dispel?
> Probably not, but that's because nobody reports the harassment of others to the extent that they should. The victims have to file, and then they get retaliated against.
> I don't think you have shown sufficient evidence that women reporting the harassment of others are punished heavily, and also that they are disproportionately punished compared to men.
> I seriously have no idea if men are punished as much. I want to know. I would expect a slight bias but for all I know men are 50x as able to report harassment without being retaliated against. But it needs evidence.
There is tons and tons of evidence showing that sexual harassment is primarily a problem with men sexually harassing women. This article is well cited: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/fatima-goss-graves-testifies-ee.... Some choice bits:
* Women account for over 82% of sexual harassment charges that make it to the EEOC
* 1 in 4 women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace (at least once).
* Of those 18 million women, 70% of them did not report it.
* In contrast, 1 in 10 men have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.
* Two-thirds of [low-wage] women workers felt they would face negative repercussions if they complained about or reported sexual harassment from management.
* 46 percent [low-wage] felt there would be negative repercussions if they complained about or reported sexual harassment from co-workers.
* 70 percent [low-wage] felt there would be negative repercussions if they complained about or reported sexual harassment from customers.
* A significant majority of women workers felt they would experience negative consequences, including financial loss, public humiliation, or job termination if they tried to report sexual harassment from management and customers.
Additionally, although not perfectly topical, this article finds that "62 percent of [military] women who reported an assault said they experienced retaliation": http://www.nwlc.org/press-release/dod-report-shows-continued...
Granted these aren't stats about men or women experiencing retaliation in your cooked up, mythical scenario. But if you're going to ignore all these statistics because your friendly neighborhood feminist ally (that's me) couldn't dig up exactly the stat you wanted, you're planting your head firmly and deeply in the sand.
===
> Victims get punished for reporting harassment, and that's terrible, and that's mostly women, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of how everyone around the harassment should act. Because in a group of 20 people, even if all the women get harassed once, they're the bystander 90% of the time.
I feel like this is the crux of our argument. You believe "bystanders", male or not, are obligated to step in and stop harassment according to their relative power. They're not; women are not obligated to do this. It's not their fault someone is being harassed, they're not responsible for the patriarchy. Women are retaliated against heavily, and they already start at a disadvantage. They are under no obligation to subject themselves to further, disproportionate hardship to fix a problem they have nothing to do with.
I've made several points in that paragraph, and I'm interested which ones you disagree with:
* Do you disagree that it's not women's fault someone is being harassed?
* Do you disagree that women are not responsible for the patriarchy?
* Do you disagree that women are far more likely to suffer the effects of retaliation compared to men, because they're far more likely to experience harassment?
* Do you disagree that women start from a point of disadvantage compared to men, and therefore are not obligated to spend their hard-won resources fixing a problem that isn't their fault and that has already disadvantaged them, especially when they can't guarantee that something bad won't happen to them?
I might be biased, but I find it hard to disagree with any of those points.
===
OK, now I'm ready to talk about even vs. uneven responsibility.
Your argument hinges on the idea that if you can do something, anything, about a problem, at little to no risk to yourself, you have a moral obligation to do so. In this instance, even though women may not be able to do as much as men about harassment, the fact that they can do something morally obligates them. I have multiple counterarguments.
1. Having the means to solve a problem in no way morally obligates you to do something about it. I have something like $5,000 in a savings account. With that money, I could buy a lot of soup for hungry people. I am under no moral obligation to do this. Very few people in society think this, because while hunger persists, almost everyone else has savings. There are multiple problems I can work on with this money. Why should I spend it on soup when I could donate it to mosquito nets? Why should women use their resources against sexual harassment when they could put it towards reproductive rights, or a new set of tires for their car, or whatever they want because it's their money?
2. No one is morally obligated to solve a problem for which they are not responsible. I am not obligated to try and stop ISIS, for example. I bear no responsibility for ISIS' actions. Could I do something? Sure. I could donate to a charity. I could fly to Baghdad and sign up as a resistance fighter (would they say no? I don't know). The fact that I am doing nothing does not make me "part of the problem". Why does bad behavior on ISIS' part constitute some kind of obligation to stop them on mine? Why am I a part of the ISIS problem in your eyes because I'm not on a plane to Baghdad right now?
3. You can never fully ascertain risk, especially in these circumstances. We're not talking about a moon landing here, we're talking about volatile, unpredictable human behavior. This isn't hypothetical; women sometimes experience violent repercussions when confronting harassment. Therefore, a major pillar of your argument ("at little to no risk to yourself") falls.
4. It is grossly entitled for a system that oppresses women to ask women for support so it can stop oppressing them, labeling them as "part of the problem" if they refuse.
5. Given the current situation, which simplified could be characterized as men having $10,000 to solve a problem and Women have $7,500 to solve a problem because the problem has already cost women $2,500, why are women obligated to spend any money at all to fix the problem? Hasn't the problem cost them enough already?
Yep, never disagreed with that.
>Granted these aren't stats about men or women experiencing retaliation in your cooked up, mythical scenario.
What??? My scenario is "men harasses woman, someone else sees". Your stats are impeccable, but they are about victims reporting, and that is totally unrelated to my argument.
===
I'll leave the middle part for last.
===
> 1. Having the means to solve a problem in no way morally obligates you to do something about it. I have something like $5,000 in a savings account.
This is a reasonable point. I may or may not accept it entirely, but it's entirely valid.
>2. No one is morally obligated to solve a problem for which they are not responsible.
Yep, I agree here, the question is about how to define 'responsible'.
>3. You can never fully ascertain risk, especially in these circumstances.
Agreed that you can never be sure. This applies to everyone so it doesn't change my argument at all. It just changes where you draw lines, not if you draw lines.
>4. It is grossly entitled for a system that oppresses women to ask women for support so it can stop oppressing them, labeling them as "part of the problem" if they refuse.
It's entitled to do this to anyone who is not a harasser, but someone's gotta explain that it's not okay.
>5. Given the current situation, which simplified could be characterized as men having $10,000 to solve a problem and Women have $7,500 to solve a problem because the problem has already cost women $2,500, why are women obligated to spend any money at all to fix the problem? Hasn't the problem cost them enough already?
This hits right at the core of how you and I disagree. I don't think unfair treatment should come before moral obligations. Moral obligations are there no matter how you've been treated.
But perhaps you say the obligation is for the rich to help first. That is totally valid! White straight guy has to help the most, because he had it easy. I can get behind that! But then Man Z, who only has $300 because life screwed him over, I don't think he's more obligated to help than the woman with $7,500 is.
===
Now your bullet points.
* Do you disagree that it's not women's fault someone is being harassed?
Depends on what 'fault' means. They have no direct fault, they share in societal fault.
* Do you disagree that women are not responsible for the patriarchy?
Women are partially responsible for the patriarchy. They are not slave caste. They are mistreated and much of their rightful power is stolen from them, but not all of it.
* Do you disagree that women are far more likely to suffer the effects of retaliation compared to men, because they're far more likely to experience harassment?
I agree that women are far more likely to suffer retaliation because they experience more harassment. However I am not convinced about retaliation unrelated to self-reporting. In particular I am not convinced that women trying to fix societal flaws are far more likely to suffer retaliation than men.
In other words, I'm not sure the problem goes beyond "people are really shitty to victims".
* Do you disagree that women start from a point of disadvantage compared to men, and therefore are not obligated to spend their hard-won resources fixing a problem that isn't their fault and that has already disadvantaged them, especially when they can't guarantee that something bad won't happen to them?
Hoo boy. I'm going to split this one up.
> women start from a point of disadvantage compared to men
Yes.
> therefore are not obligated
Disagree.
>a problem that isn't their fault
Same for non-harassing men.
>and that has already disadvantaged them
This is true, this sucks.
>especially when they can't guarantee that something bad won't happen to them
For trying to change society's standards? This is technically correct, but this applies to men too, and is totally unrelated to the retaliation inflicted upon victims.
===
So in summary:
Some men harass women.
These men and only these men are directly responsible.
In a broader sense, the patriarchy is indirectly responsible.
The patriarchy gives disproportionate power to men, but it is made of up men and women. It is the current form of society. Everyone contributes.
There are many reasons men have more blame. But they do not have all of it.
Men do not directly pass on the secrets of harassment to other men, out of sight of women. It is a problem that is owned by the entire patriarchy, and the entire patriarchy is owned by everyone.
> What??? My scenario is "men harasses woman, someone else sees". Your stats are impeccable, but they are about victims reporting, and that is totally unrelated to my argument.
You've yet to explain why the third-party thing is important.
=== I'll leave the middle part for last. ===
>> 2. No one is morally obligated to solve a problem for which they are not responsible.
> Yep, I agree here, the question is about how to define 'responsible'.
Well google dictionary defines responsible as: "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it".
>> 3. You can never fully ascertain risk, especially in these circumstances.
> Agreed that you can never be sure. This applies to everyone so it doesn't change my argument at all. It just changes where you draw lines, not if you draw lines.
This isn't merely a theoretical argument. When a woman steps in to stop harassment, there is a real threat of violence. There's no way to reasonably determine what the amount of risk is. Even if the woman reports the episode after the fact, there is always a chance of retaliation, either by the harasser or by the reporting woman's boss, or by prospective employers because she's been blacklisted. It's critical to understand that because of this, your scenario does not exist.
>> 4. It is grossly entitled for a system that oppresses women to ask women for support so it can stop oppressing them, labeling them as "part of the problem" if they refuse.
> It's entitled to do this to anyone who is not a harasser, but someone's gotta explain that it's not okay.
There are two issues with the argument you're making here:
1. The system oppresses women so it's unfair. The system doesn't oppress men (OK you can make a gender roles argument, but let's stipulate for now), in fact, white men built this system, so it's fair.
2. The issue with your argument that you make here is your phrase "to do". Women don't control the patriarchy, they can't direct society to force white men to police themselves. They obviously can't, because it's not happening. You're implying equality between white men and women when you say, "it's entitled to do this to anyone". It isn't, because women aren't responsible for the patriarchy, rape culture, and so on.
>> 5. Given the current situation, which simplified could be characterized as men having $10,000 to solve a problem and Women have $7,500 to solve a problem because the problem has already cost women $2,500, why are women obligated to spend any money at all to fix the problem? Hasn't the problem cost them enough already?
> This hits right at the core of how you and I disagree. I don't think unfair treatment should come before moral obligations. Moral obligations are there no matter how you've been treated.
I vehemently disagree with this. I have no obligation to treat someone who beats me with respect, for example. Or if I'm married and my partner cheats on me, my moral obligations change significantly. Do you disagree?
> But perhaps you say the obligation is for the rich to help first. That is totally valid! White straight guy has to help the most, because he had it easy. I can get behind that! But then Man Z, who only has $300 because life screwed him over, I don't think he's more obligated to help than the woman with $7,500 is.
This is where the analogy, like all analogies, breaks down. In the patriarchy, we deal in the currency of privilege, and privilege is relative. If a man has $300, there's a comparable woman with $225.
===
Now your bullet points.
>> * Do you disagree that it's not women's fault someone is being harassed?
> Depends on what 'fault' means. They have no direct fault, they share in societal fault.
I more or less mean "responsibility", which again is "being the primary cause of something". Therefore, even if I buy into the idea of societal fault (which I don't), women clearly have no responsibility for this. They're obviously not the primary cause of the patriarchy.
>> * Do you disagree that women are not responsible for the patriarchy?
> Women are partially responsible for the patriarchy. They are not slave-caste.
I actually feel like this is the root of our disagreement. Let's use actual slaves as an analogy. There were free blacks in the US during slavery. Did they bear any responsibility for slavery? Your argument says that they did, even if it's a small amount, because they had at least some power. But, of course, this is ridiculous. They didn't create slavery, and given its druthers, slavery would oppress them (if it hadn't already). Same thing goes for the patriarchy.
The oppressed are never responsible for the system that oppresses them. How could that even be the case?
It seems like you're implying that the patriarchy is a problem that affects us all and we're all in it together to dismantle it. But that's incorrect. The patriarchy was created by white men, and it benefits 1/3 of the population while oppressing the rest. The oppressed are not responsible for the system that oppresses them, therefore it's morally incumbent on those who benefit from the oppressive system to fix it.
>> * Do you disagree that women are far more likely to suffer the effects of retaliation compared to men, because they're far more likely to experience harassment?
> I agree that women are far more likely to suffer retaliation because they experience more harassment. However I am not convinced about retaliation unrelated to self-reporting. In particular I am not convinced that women trying to fix societal flaws are far more likely to suffer retaliation than men.
Again you've yet to explain why third-party is important. I will also clarify and say that regardless on the retaliation risk to men and women, men bear responsibility because it's our system, and because we know for a fact that women experience high levels of retaliation.
===
I'm not gonna quote all the junk for the last point and the final section, because HN isn't really equipped for these kinds of discussions. What I will say is that it boils down to this:
Women are not members of the patriarchy, any more than blacks were members of slavery, or any other oppressed group is a member of the system that oppresses them. Even if you argue that contemporary white men did not create the patriarchy, white men are the only ones that benefit from it. You cannot morally obligate the oppressed to fix the system that oppresses them. The only group left is the group unoppressed, and that's white men. This is why all men are responsible, and no women are responsible.
I don't think the current system is comparable to slavery. Slaves in the US really had next to zero power. They were not part of the same society. The oppressed groups today do have some power. You could say we're halfway to fixing the problem. It's terrible but it's less terrible.
I just think you're wrong to view it in black and white terms. There are people in privileged groups that have been treated terribly anyway. There are people in oppressed groups with massive power. There are (not common enough) privileged people that work extremely hard to make things more fair. There are (rare) oppressed people that work extremely hard to perpetuate oppression. There are certain groups of men that have far less privilege than certain groups of women, because of other factors like race and orientation.
>You cannot morally obligate the oppressed to fix the system that oppresses them.
I obligate anyone that perpetuates oppression.
Straight white men have the most obligation to fix things, but if they all ceased to exist one day there wouldn't be a single type of oppression fixed. Sexism, racism, everything else would still be there.
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.
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.
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.
Sexual harassment is a problem in the male community. It is perpetrated almost entirely by males. Women have no responsibility to solve male problems. Our behavior is in no way their fault.
> Everyone influences what is seen as acceptable.
No, in our society the patriarchy has decided what is acceptable. In the 18th and 19th centuries, we had laws governing women's dress so they physically couldn't do male labor. We also prohibited them from standing up in stage coaches. There's a long list. You can say, "that's the past", but it's our societal history, like it or not. FWIW, it persists to this day, with different dress codes for male and female high school students, and with men allowed to be shirtless and not women.
> Men do not have special control over other men. Saying the fix is "up to men" is inaccurate no matter what you mean.
I'm not saying men have special control over other men. I'm saying women have no obligation to solve a behavior problem in the male community, especially when they're the victims of that behavior. And if we eliminate women, we're left with... men.
> It's either insulting by implying that all men are harassers
This is a non sequitur, and a strawman. Just because I don't personally harass women doesn't mean I don't have an obligation to stand up to my peers when they do. People are often the best advocates inside their own communities, so for my white male peers, my voice, for better or worse, carries more weight than that of people of color or women. Look up Tim Wise some time.
> or it's insulting by implying that women have no power in shaping society.
Women do have power, but if it were sufficient, there wouldn't be a wage gap. There would be 220 congresswomen instead of 84, and 51 women senators instead of 20. There wouldn't be a war on their reproductive rights. Women fought for 150 years for the right to vote. American male slaves got the right to vote before women did. Marital rape wasn't considered a crime until the 1980s. Women were passed over as estate executors in favor of distant male relatives for decades.
> If you want to tell me women have no power/responsibility at all, that's just obnoxious.
Women fight harassment, sexism, misogyny, and disadvantage every day, even if they're not aware of it. Women pay more for health care. They pay higher mortgage rates and they pay more for cars. They get paid less at work. They're less likely to be hired and less likely to be promoted. When they take initiative in the workplace, they're likely to be penalized, as women are still evaluated on the basis of "likeability". They're basically the sole victims of sexual harassment, and outside the prison system (where the perpetrators of rape are still overwhelmingly male), they're far, far more likely to be the victims of rape. I'm struggling to come up with an area where women have it better than men, and I really can't come up with one.
And after taking stock of all the shit women deal with every day, I think it's wildly, shamefully entitled to argue that on top of all of it, they still have more obligations. To their credit, many women do work hard against sexism, even when it's not their job. But that's their choice, and you don't get to decide for them.
Women have it harder, it sucks. But I don't think all that shit they deal with affects their basic moral obligations. I think moral obligations are tied into the level of power people have, and women have nonzero power so they have nonzero obligations.
Talking about a "male community" to argue they have the obligation and nobody else is a false grouping. You could just as easily lump "abusive men" and "women that know spanish" and start saying the responsibility lies on mexico to stop the abusers.
There is no male-only cabal with 3 billion members. There is a fucked-up patriarchy where men have more power but not all of the power.
If you like terrible analogies, here's another. What you're arguing is that an inmate falsely imprisoned is obligated to keep others from being falsely imprisoned if they have significant resources and there is little to no risk to them. Stipulating for now that there's a way to objectively quantify risk and that there are situations that are definitely low or no risk (which is a tenuous claim), the former prisoner owes society nothing. They were oppressed. They're trying to get her their life together, and even if they can deem a given situation low/no risk, and even if they somehow clawed their way out from under a felony into success, they're under no obligation to use their hard-won resources to fix society's fucked up "justice" system. They'd go broke in 10 minutes, for one thing.
You've argued that amount of harassment isn't an issue, but it absolutely is. If every woman in a position of power were obligated to spend their resources fighting harassment, that's all they'd do (or, according to you, they'd be part of the problem). This is an unfair responsibility you're assigning to women, who are in no way responsible for the current mess.
> women have nonzero power so they have nonzero obligations
They also have nonzero risk and aren't responsible for society's oppression of them. They also have less power as a result of the patriarchy; you can't tell someone who just got robbed that they'll have to pay some money to catch the thief. They just got robbed! You can't tell women to spend their resources to fight the patriarchy, the patriarchy saps their resources every chance it gets.