> As best I understand it, the basis of your argument is that white men have set society's expectations, so they have all the responsibility.

> As best I understand it, the basis of my argument is that everyone in society (unevenly) sets society's expectations, so they all (unevenly) share responsibility.

> There's no way to reconcile those two.

Sure there is: one of us is wrong :). I'm happy to focus on this part if you like, but I'll do so at the end.

===

> "CEO Stuff"

There are different levels of responsibility and accountability. A CEO, male or female, has legal obligations. Your argument is that women with means have a moral obligation to stop harassment if there is little or no risk to them, otherwise they're complicit. Moral obligations are different than legal obligations for many reasons, but specifically in our discussion, a moral obligation implies responsibility for the situation. I think you agree because you argue that women who don't stop harassment in these cases are "part of the problem". I disagree entirely. Nothing a woman could do would make them "part of the problem", because the problem is male behavior. By definition, women are excluded.

>> But I'll also ask you: do you think men are frequently retaliated against for speaking up about the harassment of women? Is this really something I should have to find evidence to dispel?

> Probably not, but that's because nobody reports the harassment of others to the extent that they should. The victims have to file, and then they get retaliated against.

> I don't think you have shown sufficient evidence that women reporting the harassment of others are punished heavily, and also that they are disproportionately punished compared to men.

> I seriously have no idea if men are punished as much. I want to know. I would expect a slight bias but for all I know men are 50x as able to report harassment without being retaliated against. But it needs evidence.

There is tons and tons of evidence showing that sexual harassment is primarily a problem with men sexually harassing women. This article is well cited: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/fatima-goss-graves-testifies-ee.... Some choice bits:

* Women account for over 82% of sexual harassment charges that make it to the EEOC

* 1 in 4 women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace (at least once).

* Of those 18 million women, 70% of them did not report it.

* In contrast, 1 in 10 men have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.

* Two-thirds of [low-wage] women workers felt they would face negative repercussions if they complained about or reported sexual harassment from management.

* 46 percent [low-wage] felt there would be negative repercussions if they complained about or reported sexual harassment from co-workers.

* 70 percent [low-wage] felt there would be negative repercussions if they complained about or reported sexual harassment from customers.

* A significant majority of women workers felt they would experience negative consequences, including financial loss, public humiliation, or job termination if they tried to report sexual harassment from management and customers.

Additionally, although not perfectly topical, this article finds that "62 percent of [military] women who reported an assault said they experienced retaliation": http://www.nwlc.org/press-release/dod-report-shows-continued...

Granted these aren't stats about men or women experiencing retaliation in your cooked up, mythical scenario. But if you're going to ignore all these statistics because your friendly neighborhood feminist ally (that's me) couldn't dig up exactly the stat you wanted, you're planting your head firmly and deeply in the sand.

===

> Victims get punished for reporting harassment, and that's terrible, and that's mostly women, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of how everyone around the harassment should act. Because in a group of 20 people, even if all the women get harassed once, they're the bystander 90% of the time.

I feel like this is the crux of our argument. You believe "bystanders", male or not, are obligated to step in and stop harassment according to their relative power. They're not; women are not obligated to do this. It's not their fault someone is being harassed, they're not responsible for the patriarchy. Women are retaliated against heavily, and they already start at a disadvantage. They are under no obligation to subject themselves to further, disproportionate hardship to fix a problem they have nothing to do with.

I've made several points in that paragraph, and I'm interested which ones you disagree with:

* Do you disagree that it's not women's fault someone is being harassed?

* Do you disagree that women are not responsible for the patriarchy?

* Do you disagree that women are far more likely to suffer the effects of retaliation compared to men, because they're far more likely to experience harassment?

* Do you disagree that women start from a point of disadvantage compared to men, and therefore are not obligated to spend their hard-won resources fixing a problem that isn't their fault and that has already disadvantaged them, especially when they can't guarantee that something bad won't happen to them?

I might be biased, but I find it hard to disagree with any of those points.

===

OK, now I'm ready to talk about even vs. uneven responsibility.

Your argument hinges on the idea that if you can do something, anything, about a problem, at little to no risk to yourself, you have a moral obligation to do so. In this instance, even though women may not be able to do as much as men about harassment, the fact that they can do something morally obligates them. I have multiple counterarguments.

1. Having the means to solve a problem in no way morally obligates you to do something about it. I have something like $5,000 in a savings account. With that money, I could buy a lot of soup for hungry people. I am under no moral obligation to do this. Very few people in society think this, because while hunger persists, almost everyone else has savings. There are multiple problems I can work on with this money. Why should I spend it on soup when I could donate it to mosquito nets? Why should women use their resources against sexual harassment when they could put it towards reproductive rights, or a new set of tires for their car, or whatever they want because it's their money?

2. No one is morally obligated to solve a problem for which they are not responsible. I am not obligated to try and stop ISIS, for example. I bear no responsibility for ISIS' actions. Could I do something? Sure. I could donate to a charity. I could fly to Baghdad and sign up as a resistance fighter (would they say no? I don't know). The fact that I am doing nothing does not make me "part of the problem". Why does bad behavior on ISIS' part constitute some kind of obligation to stop them on mine? Why am I a part of the ISIS problem in your eyes because I'm not on a plane to Baghdad right now?

3. You can never fully ascertain risk, especially in these circumstances. We're not talking about a moon landing here, we're talking about volatile, unpredictable human behavior. This isn't hypothetical; women sometimes experience violent repercussions when confronting harassment. Therefore, a major pillar of your argument ("at little to no risk to yourself") falls.

4. It is grossly entitled for a system that oppresses women to ask women for support so it can stop oppressing them, labeling them as "part of the problem" if they refuse.

5. Given the current situation, which simplified could be characterized as men having $10,000 to solve a problem and Women have $7,500 to solve a problem because the problem has already cost women $2,500, why are women obligated to spend any money at all to fix the problem? Hasn't the problem cost them enough already?