4 ms·

I've seen a few comments on this and articles like this to the effect of "so any time you proposition a woman it could be assault?" and I think it's worth respo

I've seen a few comments on this and articles like this to the effect of "so any time you proposition a woman it could be assault?" and I think it's worth responding to that idea in general. Yes, there is generally an expectation that men initiate romance, and that is an unfair burden both on men (who have to do the propositioning) and women (who have to decline unwanted propositions). For game-theoretic reasons, this is difficult to change, but it is changing slowly. In the mean time, restrictions on how to initiate disproportionately affect men, and a lack of restrictions disproportionately affects women. Even more so in situations of gender imbalance (look up "Petrie Multiplier" for more on this). I believe it's for this reason that some men are resistant to "err on the safe side" type policies; as long as they are expected to initiate, they can't succeed without taking risks. But it's impossible to address this without also including the effect of power imbalance. Even in a world where women initiate 100% of the time, men would in almost all cases still be more physically powerful, and sometimes hold other kinds of social or institutional power. This power can be used to coerce, assault or rape but, even if it isn't, the consequences of a power disparity can be an implicit part of the equation (cf "I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go"). So, what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Sarah Kunst? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a potential employer that made it more difficult for her to say no. Worse still, "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" makes that relationship explicit. And what was wrong about Dave McClure's behaviour with Cheryl Yeoh? Not propositioning her at all, but propositioning her in the context of a power imbalance as a physically stronger man alone with her in her bedroom, and then forcing himself on her when she said no. I repeat: he could only have done this because he was physically stronger, and even if he didn't, the possibility was there. So to anyone who's wondering if this means men hitting on women is now outlawed, I hope this can provide a healthy framework for thinking about it. It's okay to hit on people, but avoid doing so in situations with a power imbalance that could mean there are consequences for saying no. And also if they do say no don't assault them. Unfortunately, as a man, you probably have the ability to physically overpower most women if you want. Hopefully you don't want, but it's worth considering that you have that ability, and she may not know whether you're going to use it. For a shorter and funnier version of this line of thinking, I suggest this clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

nnfy 9y ago
I am pleased to see you attempt a logical exploration of this topic. However, I object to a couple points. First, there is almost always potential for consequences for saying no, so long as you allow a physical power imbalance. Second, and most importantly, you are neglecting that power imbalance forms an entire framework for human sexual interaction, one which is as old as our species. This is at a minimum a biological imperative (hormonal, genetic) and an emergent psychological imperative (physical size/strength/endurance differences). These natural drives are responsible for most men desiring power and most women desiring powerful men. Now suddenly, over the last few decades, we've turned this intrinsic human nature on its head, and I think that is why this is such a difficult topic for people to grasp/discuss. I think people underestimate how far removed the current push for gender parity is from human history. This is more of an experiment than most people realize.

nnfy 9y ago

I am pleased to see you attempt a logical exploration of this topic. However, I object to a couple points. First, there is almost always potential for consequences for saying no, so long as you allow a physical power imbalance. Second, and most importantly, you are neglecting that power imbalance forms an entire framework for human sexual interaction, one which is as old as our species. This is at a minimum a biological imperative (hormonal, genetic) and an emergent psychological imperative (physical size/strength/endurance differences). These natural drives are responsible for most men desiring power and most women desiring powerful men. Now suddenly, over the last few decades, we've turned this intrinsic human nature on its head, and I think that is why this is such a difficult topic for people to grasp/discuss. I think people underestimate how far removed the current push for gender parity is from human history. This is more of an experiment than most people realize.