He's actually got a point. She may be victimizing herself and blowing this way out of proportion. There are plenty of guys out there also taking "shit" from co-workers but biting the bullet and rather coming up with a witty response than shutting themselves in.
I'm a guy who's taken "shit" from co-workers before, and it's no fun. Rather than keep coming up with witty retorts, it's usually best just to get out of the situation entirely.
I think what I am learning from this thread is that this is an "untouchable" subject, in that if you do not naturally side with the person's allegations and white-knight for them, you are part of the problem.
No. You're part of the problem if you're part of the problem. That's it.
"White-knighting" is a bullshit Orwellian term designed to make sexist assholes feel justified. As though defending against sexism under an assumed name on an Internet message board in order to earn sexual favors from fawning women.
No, the real reason I'm "white-knighting" is because I think it's shitty to make people feel uncomfortable for who they are.
> No, the real reason I'm "white-knighting" is because I think it's shitty to make people feel uncomfortable for who they are.
I don't think you get it. Your "white-knighting" on the internet does so little for the cause you're claiming to be fighting for that it begs the assumption of an ulterior motive. That motive does not have to be "getting sexual favors." It can also be, hey, looking really great and noble and pure to your peers! That's been valuable since the dawn of society.
The best part about all the white-knighting that's happening in this thread is how many people are being zealously villainized for their rational responses. It's absolutely delusional how far words are being stretched and twisted to shove someone over to the side of "the problem" including your twisting of what "white-knighting" is to not-so-indirectly implicate me as a "sexist asshole." Bravo, you deserve a medal for that one.
Assuming by villainized you mean down-voted, pretty much every grey comment in this thread is by a man making the assumption that their experience of the world is women's experience. That's just not true; claiming so is not "rationality"--it's literally the definition of bias.
A man's opinion of this situation is equally valid, since a man is equally influencing the situation. If this was a problem that occurred in a vacuum, away from men, then a man's opinion would have less weight. Are you disagreeing?
You're favoring the opinion of one sex over another because of their experiences. In this example, you're favoring woman's opinion over man's opinion because she naturally has more experience with sexual harassment. That's like saying a man's opinion in the business world is more valuable than a woman's because he naturally has more experience with leadership and conflict. If I said the latter, I would be torn to shreds. But it's the same thing you're trying to pull right now.
But "leadership and conflict" aren't natural, essential experiences of being a man. I'm asserting that sexist put-downs are a natural and essential part of being a woman.
If you must have a male corollary, I think there's a case to be made that men suffer from success anxiety--that their self-worth is tied to material success--much more than women (I'm not saying this is "female privilege" or "sexism against men", just that it's something that men are evaluated on much more intensely than women). Would I favour a man's view of male success anxiety over a woman's? Yes, probably.
But things like "leadership" or "conflict" are at best loosely correlated with gender--that doesn't make men automatically experts on it any more than it makes all men CEOs or heads of state just because the majority of those positions are filled by men.
