3 ms·

It shouldn't be a competition. If a man abuses his power over a female (or male, for that matter) employee, then they should have the book thrown at them. The s

It shouldn't be a competition. If a man abuses his power over a female (or male, for that matter) employee, then they should have the book thrown at them. The same should apply for women. I hate the level of politicisation over this, it's a shitty thing to do no matter who does it.

seadan83 4y ago
It's one of those, "see, woman can do X too, so why are we so focused on only men doing X" Similar too, "white people are shot by cops". Similar to "white people are discriminated against in colleges". The point is true it is shitty no matter. Though, now the conversation is shifted if a person were to focus on root causes of either problem. Overall, false equivalence.
- schroeding 4y ago
  ... so don't talk about it, keep it quiet, because it "shifts the conversation"? :/ Sorry, I see your point, I know that this is used to derail conversations, you're right, but "false equivalence" kinda implies that one thing is worse than the other. It is, systematically, but it isn't, personally. If you were raped, it doesn't help you that the power dynamic is and was different in our society between genders and your chance was lower, you are still as scarred for life. Maybe say this explicitly also, when talking about "false equivalence". It may be kinda hurtful to hear people say more or less "oh yeah, both shitty, but one thing is the real problem in society, let's not derail" without this very important distinction. Because you cannot assume that everyone or even the majority makes that distinction. Everyone agrees that people getting shot is bad on the personal level for the victim, because then they are dead. But many people think a e.g. boy getting raped (regardless of the perpetrators gender) is less of a problem on the personal level for the victim. It is not. It really is not. And it hurts, because even people you trust suddenly say shit like "for boys it's not that serious, they don't keep this baggage for the rest of their life", "they work it out fast". But it's just not true. I know that you probably didn't mean it that way, I just wanna tell you that that's the way it may be read. Because many people actually say this and mean it in the "on the personal level, for the victim, it's not as bad" way and thus it may be very difficult not to default to the "worse" interpretation, after being burned by assuming the "better" interpretation once before. Sorry for the nitpicking ^^'
  - Reubend 4y ago
    Good point. Even if there's a more widespread problem in society, it's pretty unpleasant for some victims to be thought of as a distraction.
    - seadan83 4y ago
      The victim isn't the distraction. It's the disproportionate coverage. Eg: "cyclist kills pedestrian" The town hall and citizenry get up in arms to protect pedestrians, letters to the editors are flying about the menace of push bikes, links are shared and retweeted thousands of times. Laws are passed to enforce bicycle registration, speed limits on trails are imposed and metered, enforcement task forces are created, and proud press releases from the mayor to address the citizens concerns for "getting tough on bikes - we will protect the pedestrians!" Meanwhile, a pedestrian is struck and killed by a motor vehicle every 85 minutes in the USA. A pedestrian being struck and killed by a bicycle is just rare. While the families of either victim grieve just as much as the other, the measures to protect the pedestrians are virtue signaling and overall a way to avoid dealing with the real problem (like, actually making people drive under 35mph so crashes are survivable for pedestrians, etc..)
  - seadan83 4y ago
    It is hard to know whether that would be a willful mis-reading or not. Creates the straw retort, "see, you don't care about victim X at all, you are a hypocrite and not actually wanting to solve this problem! X matter too!" For some, having that kind of dialogue is their goal rather than actually discuss the problem of sexual harrasment. The false equivalence is not the impact of the problem, but the prevalence of the problem. AFAIK, most yearly sexual harrassment training at workplaces is mandated in most states. That training makes it clear any gender can instigate harrassment. I'm surprised that this seems like anything new. If a person wants to deal with sexual harassment, you kinda need to make an impact on the 90% causes of the problem. Instead, this kind of "man bites dog" story does results in debates of nitpicking. Nobody said this isn't horrible for anyone to experience, men or woman. But, creating a false equivalence that this is an equal problem for everyone ignores what are going to be otherwise uncomfortable truths. It's one of those problems where one side doesn't need to win, just make sure that the other side does not (eg, troll, buy time, change the subject, what-aboutism, attack the messenger, etc..) The data we have is that sexual assault and harrasment from woman is rare. That does not mean it does not happen, but it is rare. Some commentators stated that men being harassed is under reported, well it is overall under-reported. In sum, sexual harrasment is a big problem no matter who experiences it. Though, the focus here creates a real risk of a "man bites dog" type of story.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Power differentials are the root cause of all of these situations. This is why feminists have long said that rape is about power, not about sex. Unfortunately the 'people in charge' are personally invested in continuing these power differentials (and of course the physical power differential between men and women, on average, or adults and children, on average, is insurmountable).
- naasking 4y ago
  > It's one of those, "see, woman can do X too, so why are we so focused on only men doing X" And that's exactly correct in this case. The answer is not "ignore or dismiss people who ask about why we don't focus on women doing X", it's "we should investigate women doing X too, because X is wrong no matter who does it".

seadan83 4y ago

It's one of those, "see, woman can do X too, so why are we so focused on only men doing X" Similar too, "white people are shot by cops". Similar to "white people are discriminated against in colleges". The point is true it is shitty no matter. Though, now the conversation is shifted if a person were to focus on root causes of either problem. Overall, false equivalence.

schroeding 4y ago
... so don't talk about it, keep it quiet, because it "shifts the conversation"? :/ Sorry, I see your point, I know that this is used to derail conversations, you're right, but "false equivalence" kinda implies that one thing is worse than the other. It is, systematically, but it isn't, personally. If you were raped, it doesn't help you that the power dynamic is and was different in our society between genders and your chance was lower, you are still as scarred for life. Maybe say this explicitly also, when talking about "false equivalence". It may be kinda hurtful to hear people say more or less "oh yeah, both shitty, but one thing is the real problem in society, let's not derail" without this very important distinction. Because you cannot assume that everyone or even the majority makes that distinction. Everyone agrees that people getting shot is bad on the personal level for the victim, because then they are dead. But many people think a e.g. boy getting raped (regardless of the perpetrators gender) is less of a problem on the personal level for the victim. It is not. It really is not. And it hurts, because even people you trust suddenly say shit like "for boys it's not that serious, they don't keep this baggage for the rest of their life", "they work it out fast". But it's just not true. I know that you probably didn't mean it that way, I just wanna tell you that that's the way it may be read. Because many people actually say this and mean it in the "on the personal level, for the victim, it's not as bad" way and thus it may be very difficult not to default to the "worse" interpretation, after being burned by assuming the "better" interpretation once before. Sorry for the nitpicking ^^'
- Reubend 4y ago
  Good point. Even if there's a more widespread problem in society, it's pretty unpleasant for some victims to be thought of as a distraction.
  - seadan83 4y ago
    The victim isn't the distraction. It's the disproportionate coverage. Eg: "cyclist kills pedestrian" The town hall and citizenry get up in arms to protect pedestrians, letters to the editors are flying about the menace of push bikes, links are shared and retweeted thousands of times. Laws are passed to enforce bicycle registration, speed limits on trails are imposed and metered, enforcement task forces are created, and proud press releases from the mayor to address the citizens concerns for "getting tough on bikes - we will protect the pedestrians!" Meanwhile, a pedestrian is struck and killed by a motor vehicle every 85 minutes in the USA. A pedestrian being struck and killed by a bicycle is just rare. While the families of either victim grieve just as much as the other, the measures to protect the pedestrians are virtue signaling and overall a way to avoid dealing with the real problem (like, actually making people drive under 35mph so crashes are survivable for pedestrians, etc..)
- seadan83 4y ago
  It is hard to know whether that would be a willful mis-reading or not. Creates the straw retort, "see, you don't care about victim X at all, you are a hypocrite and not actually wanting to solve this problem! X matter too!" For some, having that kind of dialogue is their goal rather than actually discuss the problem of sexual harrasment. The false equivalence is not the impact of the problem, but the prevalence of the problem. AFAIK, most yearly sexual harrassment training at workplaces is mandated in most states. That training makes it clear any gender can instigate harrassment. I'm surprised that this seems like anything new. If a person wants to deal with sexual harassment, you kinda need to make an impact on the 90% causes of the problem. Instead, this kind of "man bites dog" story does results in debates of nitpicking. Nobody said this isn't horrible for anyone to experience, men or woman. But, creating a false equivalence that this is an equal problem for everyone ignores what are going to be otherwise uncomfortable truths. It's one of those problems where one side doesn't need to win, just make sure that the other side does not (eg, troll, buy time, change the subject, what-aboutism, attack the messenger, etc..) The data we have is that sexual assault and harrasment from woman is rare. That does not mean it does not happen, but it is rare. Some commentators stated that men being harassed is under reported, well it is overall under-reported. In sum, sexual harrasment is a big problem no matter who experiences it. Though, the focus here creates a real risk of a "man bites dog" type of story.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Power differentials are the root cause of all of these situations. This is why feminists have long said that rape is about power, not about sex. Unfortunately the 'people in charge' are personally invested in continuing these power differentials (and of course the physical power differential between men and women, on average, or adults and children, on average, is insurmountable).
naasking 4y ago
> It's one of those, "see, woman can do X too, so why are we so focused on only men doing X" And that's exactly correct in this case. The answer is not "ignore or dismiss people who ask about why we don't focus on women doing X", it's "we should investigate women doing X too, because X is wrong no matter who does it".