Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

cold fjord writes: Phys.org reports, "The life sciences have come under fire recently with a study published in PLOS ONE that investigated the level of sexual harassment and sexual assault of trainees in academic fieldwork environments. The study found 71% of women and 41% of men respondents experienced sexual harassment, while 26% of women and 6% of men reported experiencing sexual assault. The research team also found that within the hierarchy of academic field sites surveyed, the majority of incidents were perpetrated by peers and supervisors. The New York Times notes, "Most of these women encountered this abuse very early in their careers, as trainees. The travel inherent to scientific fieldwork increases vulnerability as one struggles to work within unfamiliar and unpredictable conditions."

Comments

Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Rinikusu]

I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women regularly use their sexuality in the workplace for their gain. Watch how the young/attractive colleagues act around those in positions of power, compared to other female or lower grade staff, especially when they want something. E.g. time off when shit is hitting the fan, or when vacation days are all blocked off due to lack of staff. They're conditioned early on to use it for their advantage, but don't see the hypocrisy of their position.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Jawnn]

I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.

Makes you wonder what, exactly? That this is not a "problem", because "everybody's doing it?" WTF? Look pal, the "problem" is narrow-minded, clueless misogynist views like that.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[NotSanguine]

I can't think of a single profession which doesn't seem to have a "problem." Makes one wonder.

Makes you wonder what, exactly? That this is not a "problem", because "everybody's doing it?" WTF? Look pal, the "problem" is narrow-minded, clueless misogynist views like that.

Wow! Just wow! I was thinking the same thing myself, except I put "this is a societal problem, not one just in the academic community," after 'Makes one wonder'. Way to go in projecting your fears and negativity on others.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[RatBastard]

If he's talking about "Elevatorgate", then he's accurate, even if he's not calm about it.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[RatBastard]

"Makes you wonder what, exactly?"

That this is a widespread social problem and not something restricted to just the nerdy professions. Project much?

Insightful, my ass.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[ganjadude]

Oh, crap, I said "broad". Now I'm guilty too!

you joke but you are probably correct here. The issue is not that 71% of all women are being sexually assaulted. Its that 71% of all women "feel assaulted" Somehow in the past 40 years what someones feelings are trump what the actual actions are.

Saying something sexual, is NOT sexual assault.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it.

There are clear and exact boundaries accepted by rational and sane people. Hitting or flirting on someone - especially a peer, is not harassment. Some "feminists" think it is.

Hitting on a subordinate, especially a direct report, is not acceptable.
Hitting on someone AFTER they ask you to stop crosses the line into harassment.

It's that simple.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, this has some truth to it. The root of the problem though, is that this kind of crap from supervises is tolerated. It's a problem with permanent-contract and tenure culture just as much, because the offenders cannot be dealt with or fired with cause as they should.

I do sympathize with people who are in such vulnerable positions. I only wish they operated like where I work - where if anyone tried this kind of thing they'd simply get fired, as they should.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Kielistic]

Actually Slashdot is like that about everything. What really gets to some on Slashdot is how people like you act all sanctimonious and incredulous when people disagree about something, and only when it comes to feminism.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same goes for women.

Why is it always the men that get singled out here? That 6% figure for men ought to be far more eye opening than the figure for women. Basically 1, it's definitely underrported and 2, the focus is still on the women. The focus is always on the women.

Few men bother to report sexual assault or rape because there's little point in doing so. Most people are under the belief that women don't do that and even if they were to try, it's not technically possible. But, it does happen, even if most cases get swept under the rug.

As far as the figures for women go, most of the time it's 3rd parties defining it as sexual assault even in cases where the "victim" wouldn't consider it to be sexual assault.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Really? You don't think sexual harassment and assault happen in the "1st world"?
You have a *very* selective view of the world around you.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Rich0]

32. Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at an anthropological field site?

Those are all joined by "or" so this is true if the answer to this question is true:
Have you ever personally experienced comments about physical beauty at an anthropological field site?

Technically that would be true if I said to a corker at a dig site, "that sure is a beautiful sunset." Even if making the obvious correction that they're talking about comments about YOUR OWN physical beauty, the statement is true if I compliment a coworker on her haircut.

The other question is much more useful as it focuses more on unwanted physical contact. Question 32 is so broad that I'd be surprised if it wasn't true of almost everybody.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[nbauman]

No, what they're talking about is, according to the article:

“Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at a field site? (If you have had more than one experience, the most notable to you).”

That's not sexual assault. I'm not even sure it rises to the level of sexual harassment.

Flirtation isn't sexual harassment. I'm sure every woman in the country must have been the subject of welcome and unwelcome flirtations.

At a recent professional meeting, a woman made suggestive sexual remarks to me about a computer program. If I had said the same thing to another woman, the second woman could have interpreted it as harassment under that definition.

There's a lot of grey areas and political correctness. If you want to look at it with publications in the scientific literature, fine. Let's use rigorous scientific methods to find out what the magnitude of sexual assault is. The first step is get your definitions right.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[mod prime]

If you don't want to look like a creep - ask the girl to your room around witnesses (they don't have to hear, just as long as you make it feel safe for her to refuse). Waiting until your alone in a confined space, if not harassing, is very bad manners to the point of being ungentlemanly. Don't do that, guys.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flirtation, on the job, especially by supervisors, is pretty damn hard to distinguish from sexual harassment. (And may actually legally be sexual harassment, when done at work.)

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Kielistic]

It is the mindless and baseless insults to anyone that disagrees with you that makes it flamebait. Your brazen strawmen that make people completely disregard what you have to say. That is also the number one reason that there is such a strong push-back against feminism. Obnoxious, pretentious blow-hards like yourself are the exact reason why so many people think feminism is a joke.

Of course you will continue to excuse your reprehensible attitude with pious self-importance and sarcastically shrug off any criticism with "most people that disagree are just misogynists" even though you have no reason the believe that and are shown otherwise every time you say it.

I want you to think about this, i kan reed, every time you feel someone is complaining about "straw-feminists" or "doesn't know what feminism is about". It is because of you and people like you. You are the number one reason that people have a bad image of feminism. It isn't misogyny. It isn't insecurities. People do not fear strong women nor do they fear losing their "privileges" (not that there aren't many feminists that love infringing on the rights of others). It is you. It is you and the other preening mooks like you. The self-aggrandizing attitude that because you are "feminist" you are morally superior and entitled to talk down, belittle, insult and defame anyone that dares say something you do not like.

You are a straw-feminist.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Dawkins has realized that he was using a logical fallacy and has since apologized for that tweet so everyone in this thread that is trying to defend him looks pretty silly.

She never accused the guy of harassment or assault. She was just pointing out behavior that she found to be creepy and used it as an example of what not to do. The whole video in question had to do with things that make women feel uncomfortable and thus not attend certain conferences. Yes, people have to deal with that from time to time in the larger society but if a specific group of people want to be more inclusive than they certainly shouldn't issue death threats just because someone had the nerve to point out some of those "awkward and uncomfortable" things.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[mod prime]

First, we're talking cold propositions here. The kind of proposition where there has been no previous conversation/flirtation etc.
Second, I didn't suggest doing it so others can overhear - indeed I pointed this out. Just so that they can see what's going on - or at the very least the lady you are propositioning has an easy way to get to witnesses (so avoid metal cages suspended in the air, for example).

This is because some men are gigantic assholes who, when it is safe for them to do so, get aggressive at 'bitches' that turn them down, and being alone with a testosterone-fuelled human with hard-on is pretty terrifying because the consequences can turn horrifying. If you want to know what such men can be like when women don't submit and they have basic anonymity? Check out the internet.

So be the gentleman, always make sure the ladies you proposition can politely turn you down without fear.

If nothing else, realize this - if you cold proposition a woman on her own, she may feel that it isn't a 'request' and you may end up inadvertently raping or sexually assaulting someone if she says OK out of fear. I doubt you'd be prosecuted for such a rape, but morally you'd be a rapist. Play on the safe side, always give girls an out.

Re:Is there a single field that doesn't?

[mod prime]

I mean, seriously!
Do you think these are place women really want strange men to proposition them for sex?

Dark Alleyways
In the park at night
In a low traffic stairwell of a near empty building
In an underground parking garage
In an elevator
On the subway
Just before she opens the front door to her inner city house at 3AM in the morning

Because if you do, then you are the one with a serious problem.

On the other hand, elevegator guy could have have quietly asked her on the way to the elevator and if she said 'no', he could let her catch the elevator on her own. But he waited until it was enclosed space with nobody watching. You don't see why this might not be cool?

Reporting bias?

[mattventura]

I've got to think that women are more likely to actually report sexual harassment than men are. Probably wouldn't make up the entire difference, but would still be something to think about.

Re:Reporting bias?

[meta-monkey]

Also, whether a woman finds an advance to be "harassment" or not depends on whether or not she's interested in the man.

So let that be a lesson to you. If you want to avoid harassment:

1) Be handsome

2) Be attractive

3) Don't be unattractive

Re:Moving the goalposts

[i kan reed]

And that's a recurring problem in these discussions. That the sexists will imagine a strawman version of the methodology in order to dismiss it. Strawmanning these kinds of concerns is one of two tools in their toolbox. The other is "ignore this, there's [other vaguely comparable problem] so it's balanced" as if the correct thing to do isn't addressing both issues.

Re:Then it happens less in science than in general

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not comparing like against like. This study only looks at sexual assault in one particular environment (which, obviously, is part of someone's lifetime). The NIJ report looks at both physical and sexual assault, over an entire lifetime.

So that comparison does nothing to show whether sexual assault happens more or less often "in science" than "in general" or compared to any other workplace environment.

HOw to tell a ridiculous sexual claim.

[gurps_npc]

Step 1) Do the same query on men.

2) If the men have a significant response rate, then just maybe that means the problem is YOUR QUESTION IS TOO VAGUE, rather than both genders experiencing sexual issues.

The mere fact that this article claims that 40+% of men experience 'sexual harassment', proves that their definition of 'sexual harassment' is not reasonable - the kind of thing only a PC fool trying to prove a problem exists would use.

Similarly, 6% of men experience sexual assault seems on the high side, though not as ridiculous as the 41% claiming harassment.

The only thing going on here is idiots using bad definitions for their poll.

nonsense

[silfen]

The article looks at field work, not science as a whole. The results are self-reported, not verified or verifiable. And "harassment" and "assault" are defined so broadly that many normal day-to-day interactions can fall under them. In short, there is no evidence that "science has a sexual assault problem" in any standard meaning of those words.

Much as feminists and other progressives like to establish such a principle, in reality, just because you feel uncomfortable or believe that something was inappropriate doesn't mean anybody has actually done anything wrong.

Dialogue v. Trolling

[Etherwalk]

Well yes, you are, guilty of deflecting criticism by claiming the definitions are too broad.

That's a common defensive reaction.

Problems should be well-defined. Someone can take that position whether they're doing it defensively or not and still be making a legitimate point. Calling it defensive, notably on a topic where there is moral stigma associated with being defensive about it, is just an ad hominem attack.

There are plenty of legitimate critiques of Parent's message--he appears to be dismissing out-of-hand an issue that affects hundreds of millions of people a year. He also failed to state what definitions he thinks are too broad to be useful. Responding with a question about one or more of those that might make people think about the issue is the difference between trolling and dialogue.

Oh the irony of it all ...

[BarbaraHudson]

Just since yesterday afternoon, apk (the HOSTS file troll) has posted 100 responses to posts I've made. The ones in this thread were among the tamest ...

"you transsexual weirdo"
"I did *NOT* bother "shim"

The others included references and links to a pic from Rocky Horror Picture Show, saying that I was nuts for "cutting off my balls", "He/She", Frank. N. Furter, "you are mentally unhinged by taking estrogen to attempt to upset your body's natural order of things, which yes, includes your mind taking a huge hit. You have mentally unbalanced yourself more than doing something quite insane in a sex change to yourself also."

And a lot more. And this goes on every day ...

Sexual harassment in a thread about sexual harassment? This all started because someone asked "What is APK" and I told them.

Now, back on topic, the headline is mislabeled (so what else is new). It says "Science has a sexual assault problem," whereas the actual survey talks about sexual harassment. And a lot of posters seem to have failed to make the distinction.

One (not exhaustive) definition of sexual harassment I would use is words or acts containing references to sex or sexual identity that either make me uncomfortable, or, or, in APK's case, were intended to make me uncomfortable but failed. Sexual assault, on the other hand, is when I'm lying on a hospital gurney in emergency with paper towels stuffed between my legs to stop the bleeding after being attacked. And for the doubters that sexual assault is under-reported, I didn't report that incident - the doctors did. I couldn't tell them. I just wanted the whole world to leave me suffer alone in peace.

Sexual harassment is not a case of "I'll know it when I see it", because too many of the harassers simply don't get it in the first place. Saying so doesn't make me a feminazi - there are plenty of men who do "get it". And there are other parts of the world where it's a heck of a lot worse, due to a culture that treats women as 3rd-class citizens.

Re:Science also has a random hook-up problem

[strikethree]

To say beer flows like water at some of these events is an understatement to say the least. It isn't hard to see how this can lead to sexual assault as well.

Fuck off. Alcohol is no excuse. You either respect people or you do not. Alcohol is not an excuse.

I am unsure why you are proposing the situation. If you would assault someone while you are drunk, you already have the will to assault someone regardless of being drunk or not. The most alcohol can do is loosen up your restrictions. Regardless, YOU are still CHOOSING to perform that action.