[user104658]

OK

The Hollywood / business in general issues are entirely different to the everyday issues. The former are about power, and while it's true that it is still more often men who are in power, that's a separate issue. The fact is that all these people at or near the top, male or female, see is money - if it will affect their pockets to tackle these issues, they won't do it. If it's bad for business to let it continue, they'll nip it in the bud. That goes for ANY issue.

Regardless, it's a world completely removed from ours and there's nothing that anyone outside of that bubble can do, other than vote with our wallets, and $$$ doesn't care what we have between our legs. As has been said already... the Weinstein issue has far more to do with a toxic industry that needs gutted from the inside out than anything else.

Meanwhile in the real world, everyday casual sexism, the idea that

"men need to sort out men",
"men need to be the ones addressing this"
"men's voices are heard."

... in my opinion ... compounds the problem. It is very similar to the rhetoric of it being "up to the Muslim communities" to tackle terrorism, it's misguided, and it causes more division. If people as a group see anyone being harassed in any way in public, we should be more willing to do something about it. On an individual level - why is it assumed that a 6' tall guy is all that much more equipped to take on a physically aggressive stranger than anyone else? That thinking is, in itself, problematic. The idea that a man is not only needed to, but EXPECTED to, sort out an issue like that more than anyone else. Fact is, a lone male who is NOT an aggressive person himself taking on an aggressor, is quite likely to get himself (and probably other bystanders) hurt. If the aggressor happens to be carrying a knife, mr white knight is probably going to get seriously injured or killed even if he's twice the size. Whereas if 5 people - regardless of sex - take on an aggressor, they will probably slink off with their tail between their legs.

So this is where it becomes a paradox. You're trying to tackle the problem of "macho male culture" and "hypermasculinity" by ... promoting "macho male culture" and suggesting that every male should consider himself a "tough guy" and chivalrous protector of poor scared females. You're promoting the idea of male = more powerful, male = better heard, male = protector, male = dominant when all that does is feed right back around to the "bad end" of the spectrum, where men who are already predisposed to disrespecting or lacking empathy for people in general are being culturally drip-fed the idea that women are inferior and need men's help in "scary situations". Men can be gentle, men experience anxiety, men can be scared by scary strangers on trains.

Again, it's not that I'm saying people should be left to fend for themselves, I'm saying that if there's a perv on a train carriage then every single person there should have a major problem with it. People should not be eyeballing "the big guy in the corner" and wondering why he isn't stepping in to sort it out.

Really the only part I can agree with, is that in groups of male friends the ones who don't think "sexist banter" is acceptable should be more willing to call their friends out on it (or mock them for it - it works better - people hate nothing more than embarrassment) and let them know it's not OK, rather than keeping quiet or even joining in under peer pressure.

Other than that I consider people to be a collective of individuals and no one is more / less responsible for the actions of people who are not them than anyone else is. Again, that's not to say people "should mind their own business" and not step in, it's just to say that expectations should not differ based on physical attributes of any kind.