Slashdot Mirror
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."
Well yes, you are, guilty of deflecting criticism by claiming the definitions are too broad.
That's a common defensive reaction.
This is anecdotal, but a friend works in academia and hears about grad students being coerced. They put up with it because reporting their advisor would undo everything they've been working for years on, and they're so close to the end the personal cost is just too high.
Some professions like accounting require you to intern at one company. It's possible dropping out of that mid-program could be as much of a setback.
Whereas if you have a harassing boss in an office job, you can turn them in and find another job. If your resume shows you worked at multiple companies, I don't think anyone would bat an eye.
There was some feminazi that went on a tear because some guy had the audacity to hit on her. Then she whined when the corresponding community luminaries pointed out that she was being a hysterical idiot. The whole situation was portrayed as proof that "X community is mysoginistic".
It was all a load of mindless victimology.
There can be a wide gap between how a bunch of extremist crusaders define a term and how the rest of us define it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They are also being entertained at conferences by a lot of vendors with fat wallets. 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. It of course in no way justifies it, but the culture doesn't impede it very well, either.
Women are more likely to be the subject of a sexual advance because men are expected to initiate courtship. Differing social expectations and indoctrination will dictate that women find any advances more objectionable then would men regardless of the level of genuine menace the represent.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
we live in a tightly wound panties world when comments about physical beauty are harassment.
Which is why there's a lot of eye rolling when the topic comes up. No matter how many trainings you make your employees go to, you cannot force them to accept complimenting somebody as assault. Just like the movie Reefer Madness, once you've compromised a part of your message by being ridiculous the entirety of your message is dismissed altogether. I don't know what mental deficiency exists in the minds of people who believe that holding FOUR annual employee trainings on sexual harassment is going to force people to accept some radical attempt to redefine normal civility as assault.
an example or 2 please?
Ive known someone personally getting in trouble for sexual harassment for simply saying that the woman was wearing a nice shirt today. to her, that was sexual assault, to anyone with common sense, it was a complement
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Bullshit. Nobody "gets in trouble" for a single comment.
The comment about the woman's shirt was clearly the straw that broke the camel's back - your friend was probably perving out on the poor woman for months before she finally lost her shit at his unwelcome advances and sexual innuendo.
Provide a citation, or retract the assertion.
You should read the study, not the article about the study, if you are going to criticize it. The thing you quoted was about harassment, not assault.
http://www.plosone.org/article...
"Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at an anthropological field site? (If you have had more than one experience, the most notable to you.)"
Is the question about sexual assault.
The grey areas are overwhelmed by the black and white areas. If you feel there are too many grey areas, talk to your manager about getting on a course to help you.