I was working as a busboy reaching up for a glass when an older server woman grabbed my ass so 'deeply' that her fingers almost reached my testicles, then squeezed like she was wringing out an orange. Even though I was unattracted to her, I was flattered at the time. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that's well past the bar for molestation.
Not an extreme example, but after I started working out more, a female coworker and boss would randomly touch my arms and shoulders when talking to me. Both about double my age.
In my case it didn’t bother me at all, but I just find it funny how little they have to worry about their actions being seen as too far.
Holy crap. Ditto except it was just a pinch and I wasn't at all flattered, I was shocked. I don't remember whether I was still 17 or had just turned 18. It was probably when I was still 17 though, as I went to college just days after turning 18. She was probably 3 times my age or so.
Perhaps you don't hear of it because of stigmas associated with talking about it. The data is there, though preliminary because of those prevailing attitudes:
Every day ten of thousands of people are being sexually harassed, and a thousand + are being sexually assaulted. We don't hear about the vast majority of these cases, even if they are prosecuted, regardless of the sexes of perpetrator and victim.
> Every day ten of thousands of people are being sexually harassed, and a thousand + are being sexually assaulted. We don't hear about the vast majority of these cases, even if they are prosecuted, regardless of the sexes of perpetrator and victim.
Sure, but because of the way male victims are treated, you hear even less about them than about female victims.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
> It is hard to know whether that is a willful mis-reading or not.
It was not a willful mis-reading. I do not think you are a hypocrite, and my comment was not meant to create a "straw retort". I honestly believe you want to erradicate rape. I tried my best to make this as clear as possible, if I wasn't able to convey it well enough that is my fault and I'm sorry. English is not my first language, this is not meant as a justification.
I just wanted to tell you that "false equivalence" in this context can be used in two ways by different people. You used it in the way you restate in this comment. I totally agree with you.
Some people use it in a different way, though. Some people will tell you (in your face, in real life) that sexual assault against boys is not as bad impact wise (*regardless* of the gender of the perpetrator, in the example I'm thinking of it was even a male perpetrator), because they will not be impacted in the long-term and the body parts that are "used" are not as intimate for boys. That's a really shit take, IMO, even more shit if it's close friends that think like that. Stuff like that makes it a bit hard to always assume that "the impact is the same" is really implicitly included. :/
Again, I never assumed (with my brain) you were one of those people and now I know for sure. But those opinions started exactly the same way. They just did not then state that "the impact is bad and / or equal in both cases", but continued that "the impact is not as bad in one case, the impact is not comparable". It's a... false equivalence, impact wise.
I misread it in the latter way initially for a short while (especially because of the comparison to "whites are discriminated against in college"), and I hope you believe me when I tell you that it was not a willful mis-reading. Sometimes the heart reads before the brain, you know? Sorry. :)
That was more or less all I wanted to tell you. That some people may misread statements like "Overall, false equivalence." because they experienced very bad takes on this topic that started similarly in the past, and it may be a good idea to e.g. explictly state "Overall, while the individual impact is equal, women are more often victims of sexual assault.". Because then it is immediately clear what you mean, and "the impact is equal" is not only said implicitly. :)
But if you don't want to, that's totally okay, too, of course! It's only a small suggestion.
Again, I agree with your point. Sorry for the inconvenience, I shouldn't have written that comment in the first place. I'm just a bit too thin-skinned with this subject. Sorry. I hope you have a nice week.
Hehe, no worries. We're in pretty good agreement I think, and I don't think I mis-interpreted your comment either (so no worries, no offense taken).
The OP question was: "why is this political"
My response should have been a lot more concise. In sum:
"This is a 'man bites dog story' that can be used to create a false equivalence for the prevalence of harassment between men & women, which can then be used in an attack-the-messenger style argument of "you don't actually care about sexual harassment, you just want to attack men'"
The amount of nuance here is pretty astounding, so those that want a status quo really want us to be having this conversation.
> Sorry. I hope you have a nice week.
No need to apologize, and the comment was not without its merits! It's a nuanced issue and discussion! My same wishes for you!
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..)
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).
> 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".
women victims have paltry statistics, which is why we know about the depth of them at all
men victims have almost no statistics, because they are not collected
the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence, this guy tried reporting it and the complaint was tossed in a dusty chamber like a chicago rape kit
In past years, I've seen at least as many news stories about female teachers sleeping with or otherwise abusing their students as I have about a man doing the same. It's possible that's just a "man bites dog" effect, but I suspect stories like that would get aired when either a man or a woman does it.
Not as infrequently as I'd like. Though usually people will chuckle it up and do nothing about it. People actually have a hard time believing men don't like it
The news cycle prefers news that get more clicks and the "high ranking male google boss gropes a female" sells better. I'd be wary to judge by press coverage.
Also, reporting rate is probably different for males vs females.
Yeah, concerts, dive bars, festivals, sporting events. Generally, although not exclusively, older women. They always seem so surprised when I’m not flattered…
