4 ms·

> Men hold the vast majority of power in our society. No cards are stacked against them. If you "believe women who report sexual harassment", and more specific

> Men hold the vast majority of power in our society. No cards are stacked against them. If you "believe women who report sexual harassment", and more specifically, if you believe women who report sexual harassment in "less clear cut" scenarios than Susan Fowlers, then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent. How much comfort the fact that other people with the same genetalia tend to fill the boardrooms provides to the accused, I will leave to your imagination. > They aren't constantly reminded by our culture to be gentlemen or look handsome or bring home the bacon or do anything they don't want to. Men aren't reminded constantly by their culture to do things they don't want to do? Where do you live, because it sounds like paradise to me. > To say "think of the men!" here is either willfully ignorant or just being a dick. It's neither. It was an attempt to puncture what I saw as misguided rhetoric. A good old WhatAboutTheMen is an efficient approach because the commenter's default reasoning for not "just believing" men would likely mirror mine for not "just believing" women. And so I don't have to spell it out for them.

parzivalm 9y ago
Seems to me that the some of whom will invariably be innocent will be significantly low. Saying "just believing" isn't the best phrase the OP could have picked but neither was your rhetoric. It just contributes to the divide between men and women.
- camelite 9y ago
  My rhetoric has the advantage of being true.
zipppy 9y ago
I'm not going to nitpick about any individual discussion points you guys have going on, but I'll chime in to say that your approach to thinking about men/women in our society seems...disingenuous. We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. That seems to be what you're doing. But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.
- camelite 9y ago
  disingenous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically I'll do you the honor of not questioning your sincerity without even making an effort to address any specific thing you said. Seems like an almost...pusillanimous...thing to do. > We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. I am not suggesting a solution to the existence of injustice, which is what a utopia would entail. I am merely pointing out that simplistic rhetoric about believing accusors will not solve the problem. > But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils. And there we part ways. Adding up all the bad stuff that happens to one group, comparing it to all the bad stuff that happens to another group, and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles. I know you probably don't recognise that as what you're doing, but your reasoning is far too simplistic given the complexities of the problem.
  - zipppy 9y ago
    I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you. edit: fine, apparently people get downvoted if they're not pedantic. "and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles." Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles?
    - camelite 9y ago
      > I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you. There's a word for that, you know. > Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles? If we both agree that we want fewer incidents of harass ment, a higher fraction of harassers punished, fewer false allegations, and fewer incidents of innocent people being punished... then that's a pretty complicated problem, right? Now multiply that by the number of potential harassers and harassees in the world. My "work" is simply the observation that a complicated problem isn't solvable by simplistic rhetoric. Of course, given the climate, that spiraled, as it does.
xor1 9y ago
>Men aren't reminded constantly by their culture to do things they don't want to do? Where do you live, because it sounds like paradise to me. blackrose is exclusively thinking of rich and powerful men when framing his argument.
- blackrose 9y ago
  I'm neither rich nor powerful, and I don't feel pressure to do anything outside of ensure my own survival. I mean, I could get a girl pregnant and still have a hell of a lot less to worry about than she does. [edit: removed paragraph]
  - nilkn 9y ago
    > you're just a selfish dick. This is a lot of aggression, and it makes me think that you are just as closed to alternative viewpoints as those with whom you are discussing this topic. I think you should completely re-evaluate your approach to debating this in the future.
    - blackrose 9y ago
      I see what you're saying, but I've laid out many other, less aggressive points and remained open to any good counter-argument. I'll take the downvotes for this, but I think certain stances people are spouting on this thread are aggressively perpetuating the poor societal values I've been arguing against. They're aggressively playing down the consequences of their sexist mentality and normalizations. And because I'm a not-impoverished white dude who doesn't worry about being persecuted for my opinions, I expressed them. (Also, the "selfish dick" part isn't meant to be taken personally. Many people are selfish, and own up to it, and wear the badge proudly. That's great. But to argue for sexism under some pretense of a noble cause is bullshit.)
  - dang 9y ago
    Your second paragraph breaks the site guidelines. It's not ok to argue like that on HN, especially on divisive topics. If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
blackrose 9y ago
> then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent. This is really a stretch in logic, and the oxymoronic "some of whom will invariably be innocent" gives away your motives on this topic. Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace. It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better (even ours, the men!). But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction.
- camelite 9y ago
  > This is really a stretch in logic It's not even a tiny weeny little stretch of logic. It is self-evident to anybody who is thinking clearly about the matter. > Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace. No. Wrong. Parent comment said "believe women who...", not "give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment". Do you understand how those two statements are different? Your one doesn't even make sense. Crediblity is "the quality of being believable or worthy of trust". Credence is probably the word you were thinking of. I don't think I'm smarter than you, but these sorts of mistakes do go to show that you are not thinking clearly. > It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better Not the falsely accused. They are men too, right? > But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction. The suggestion is not mild. My reaction was not hostile. My arguments were not misleading. I'm not contributing to the problem of some men being sexual harassers, except perhaps at some absurdly theoretically removed degree, which would leave me damned for pretty much any I comment I could make. I'm not encouraging manly, or even "manly" behaviour. My comments don't necessitate women's blog posts, if by that you are referring to Fowlers call-out. The latter is in fact an absurd charge against me on a personal level, as I'm sure you would recognize after mature reflection. That I necessitate company culture course-correction is likewise absurd, though flattering.

parzivalm 9y ago

Seems to me that the some of whom will invariably be innocent will be significantly low. Saying "just believing" isn't the best phrase the OP could have picked but neither was your rhetoric. It just contributes to the divide between men and women.

camelite 9y ago
My rhetoric has the advantage of being true.

zipppy 9y ago

I'm not going to nitpick about any individual discussion points you guys have going on, but I'll chime in to say that your approach to thinking about men/women in our society seems...disingenuous. We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. That seems to be what you're doing. But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.

camelite 9y ago
disingenous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically I'll do you the honor of not questioning your sincerity without even making an effort to address any specific thing you said. Seems like an almost...pusillanimous...thing to do. > We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. I am not suggesting a solution to the existence of injustice, which is what a utopia would entail. I am merely pointing out that simplistic rhetoric about believing accusors will not solve the problem. > But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils. And there we part ways. Adding up all the bad stuff that happens to one group, comparing it to all the bad stuff that happens to another group, and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles. I know you probably don't recognise that as what you're doing, but your reasoning is far too simplistic given the complexities of the problem.
- zipppy 9y ago
  I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you. edit: fine, apparently people get downvoted if they're not pedantic. "and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles." Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles?
  - camelite 9y ago
    > I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you. There's a word for that, you know. > Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles? If we both agree that we want fewer incidents of harass ment, a higher fraction of harassers punished, fewer false allegations, and fewer incidents of innocent people being punished... then that's a pretty complicated problem, right? Now multiply that by the number of potential harassers and harassees in the world. My "work" is simply the observation that a complicated problem isn't solvable by simplistic rhetoric. Of course, given the climate, that spiraled, as it does.

xor1 9y ago

>Men aren't reminded constantly by their culture to do things they don't want to do? Where do you live, because it sounds like paradise to me. blackrose is exclusively thinking of rich and powerful men when framing his argument.

blackrose 9y ago
I'm neither rich nor powerful, and I don't feel pressure to do anything outside of ensure my own survival. I mean, I could get a girl pregnant and still have a hell of a lot less to worry about than she does. [edit: removed paragraph]
- nilkn 9y ago
  > you're just a selfish dick. This is a lot of aggression, and it makes me think that you are just as closed to alternative viewpoints as those with whom you are discussing this topic. I think you should completely re-evaluate your approach to debating this in the future.
  - blackrose 9y ago
    I see what you're saying, but I've laid out many other, less aggressive points and remained open to any good counter-argument. I'll take the downvotes for this, but I think certain stances people are spouting on this thread are aggressively perpetuating the poor societal values I've been arguing against. They're aggressively playing down the consequences of their sexist mentality and normalizations. And because I'm a not-impoverished white dude who doesn't worry about being persecuted for my opinions, I expressed them. (Also, the "selfish dick" part isn't meant to be taken personally. Many people are selfish, and own up to it, and wear the badge proudly. That's great. But to argue for sexism under some pretense of a noble cause is bullshit.)
- dang 9y ago
  Your second paragraph breaks the site guidelines. It's not ok to argue like that on HN, especially on divisive topics. If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

blackrose 9y ago

> then you are deliberately stacking the deck against the specific men who are accused of sexual harassment, some of whom will invariably be innocent. This is really a stretch in logic, and the oxymoronic "some of whom will invariably be innocent" gives away your motives on this topic. Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace. It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better (even ours, the men!). But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction.

camelite 9y ago
> This is really a stretch in logic It's not even a tiny weeny little stretch of logic. It is self-evident to anybody who is thinking clearly about the matter. > Parent comment was saying we should give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment in the workplace. No. Wrong. Parent comment said "believe women who...", not "give a little more credibility to reports that women make about sexual harassment". Do you understand how those two statements are different? Your one doesn't even make sense. Crediblity is "the quality of being believable or worthy of trust". Credence is probably the word you were thinking of. I don't think I'm smarter than you, but these sorts of mistakes do go to show that you are not thinking clearly. > It's a pretty good idea that would make everyone's lives better Not the falsely accused. They are men too, right? > But if your reaction to that mild suggestion is hostility and misleading arguments, you're contributing to the problem and encouraging more "manly" behavior that necessitates women's blog posts and company culture course-correction. The suggestion is not mild. My reaction was not hostile. My arguments were not misleading. I'm not contributing to the problem of some men being sexual harassers, except perhaps at some absurdly theoretically removed degree, which would leave me damned for pretty much any I comment I could make. I'm not encouraging manly, or even "manly" behaviour. My comments don't necessitate women's blog posts, if by that you are referring to Fowlers call-out. The latter is in fact an absurd charge against me on a personal level, as I'm sure you would recognize after mature reflection. That I necessitate company culture course-correction is likewise absurd, though flattering.