Excellent review of an important study! I had such concerns - that this fixation on sexual harassment and #MeToo hysteria will poison the climate and ultimately hurt women professionally. And everyone socially -- by making professional interactions less fun. And here it is -- the data show exactly that. We should fight against this. I complained about ACS flashing opening slides with hoteline numbers for anonymous reporting and statements of zero tolerance to sexual harassment. This time around (Fall ACS meeting) there are no such slides, although there are signs in the halls with things like "see something - say something."
You mentioned complaining about statements of zero tolerance. Whenever an organization or person uses that phrase, zero tolerance, they are using a turn of phrase and usually don't actually mean it. So they shouldn't use it. In 2016 in my city, Baltimore, the police were roundly criticized by the US DOJ for using "zero tolerance" policies, resulting in a scathing report and a consent decree, https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/baltimore-police-zero-tolerance-justice-department.html The 164 page report contains "zero tolerance" approximately three dozen times, in all cases criticizing it. I mention this here in the event that readers may need some justification for helping others understand why "zero tolerance" is bad. Instead, I suggest they state and mean, "we do not tolerate sexual harassment."
but whatever phrases people use, the result is the same. Powerful people, including powerful women, will use whatever structures exist to bully weaker people, including men, and less powerful people, including vulnerable women, will be harassed and sexually abused by more powerful men. That's why if a rich liberal woman is flirted with in a way she doesn't like, she can punish the man, but women prisoners can be housed with male sex offenders and when they get raped, no one with a large platform cares. Gentle, kind men can be punished, but ruthless rich ones will get a pass.
I hope someone with more tech and business savvy than I develops a pin that women who don't agree with this "women are too fragile to speak for themselves and must invoke third party enforcers to destroy men who flirt with them or otherwise make them uncomfortable" can wear to advertise this rejection of the reigning belief. Maybe connected to a database where women publicly pledge "I will tell a man to stop bothering me and only report to authorities if I have attempted to deal with this man in good faith." I don't know that men would necessarily trust it, but it would be a start.
Thanks for writing this summary, otherwise I wouldn't have become aware of Gertsberg's 84-page paper (too long for me to do more than skim) or Strumia's tweet (too short to trust on its own). Gertsberg studied 83 female academics from 58 universities, and also analyzed the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The author claims that the effect was larger from MeToo than the pandemic!
I feel a sense of futility in such studies along the lines of confirmation bias, as in your words, "It comes as no surprise that the #MeToo movement did indeed reduce the number of scientific collaborations between men and women...."
You also wrote, "many men secretly confided to me that yes, they do not volunteer to mentor junior women and are circumspect ..." which makes me wonder if there are anonymous surveys that simply ask academics that sort of question, with a sampling technique that insures that respondents can feel secure to respond truthfully without implicating themselves (like, "for each T/F answer, please roll a die each time and mark the opposite of your true answer only if the roll is a 6"). I know there are such techniques - my example may not be the best in practice, but you get the idea. Of course, surveys of how people claim to behave and how they actually behave is another matter.
Astronomy Allies apparently serve a similar purpose to the ones you describe in SSE.
The normal non-insane people need to go on the warpath to fight this shit. Here's what I would do - file anonymous complaints about every single one of the people who came up with this idea. Accuse them of sexual crimes. Turn their weapon of destruction against them.
This is brilliant! Though I don't think I could bring myself to lie. But I could truthfully accuse them of creating a hostile, condescending environment, as a woman.
We also need strong pushback on the abuse of framing and shaming terminology that was built into “sexual harassment” law by Catharine McKinnon et Al back in the 1980s. It was defined first for sexual extortion an abuse of power on the rape spectrum. Now it’s anything a woman declares as making her uncomfortable, but the consequences to accused bring the full rape shaming umbrella. Most modern complaints are for interpersonal annoyances neither sexual nor harassing
These sound good: "we are continuously striving to improve our efforts and policies ..." and "If you have concerns or specific questions please email tim@club77.com.au."
Beyond those, the written policies are so inconsistent, maybe it's just a guerrilla marketing campaign.
"... any engagement MUST begin with verbal consent." and reinforced, "Don't forget verbal consent!" Discriminates against the mute primarily and the deaf secondarily.
"Please note Club 77 is on the basement floor and unfortunately not wheelchair accessible." Oh my.
"If we receive reports of any behaviour that has made someone feel uncomfortable, the reported individual will be removed from the venue and the police will be called." Promise? Do Sydney police love frivolous calls?
Excellent review of an important study! I had such concerns - that this fixation on sexual harassment and #MeToo hysteria will poison the climate and ultimately hurt women professionally. And everyone socially -- by making professional interactions less fun. And here it is -- the data show exactly that. We should fight against this. I complained about ACS flashing opening slides with hoteline numbers for anonymous reporting and statements of zero tolerance to sexual harassment. This time around (Fall ACS meeting) there are no such slides, although there are signs in the halls with things like "see something - say something."
You mentioned complaining about statements of zero tolerance. Whenever an organization or person uses that phrase, zero tolerance, they are using a turn of phrase and usually don't actually mean it. So they shouldn't use it. In 2016 in my city, Baltimore, the police were roundly criticized by the US DOJ for using "zero tolerance" policies, resulting in a scathing report and a consent decree, https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/883296/download and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/baltimore-police-zero-tolerance-justice-department.html The 164 page report contains "zero tolerance" approximately three dozen times, in all cases criticizing it. I mention this here in the event that readers may need some justification for helping others understand why "zero tolerance" is bad. Instead, I suggest they state and mean, "we do not tolerate sexual harassment."
but whatever phrases people use, the result is the same. Powerful people, including powerful women, will use whatever structures exist to bully weaker people, including men, and less powerful people, including vulnerable women, will be harassed and sexually abused by more powerful men. That's why if a rich liberal woman is flirted with in a way she doesn't like, she can punish the man, but women prisoners can be housed with male sex offenders and when they get raped, no one with a large platform cares. Gentle, kind men can be punished, but ruthless rich ones will get a pass.
In the following sentence accompanying Fig 2, it appears as through the words "light" and "dark" should be reversed.
"The light bars on the left side of the graph show the number of pre- #MeToo new collaborators, while the dark bars show post-#MeToo collaborators."
Actually this is just a really bad figure. Luana was referring to Figure 2b. Weirdly the color scheme is reversed between panels a and b.
Aha, now I see what's going on! Thank you.
Important update: Academic Freedom Alliance has issued a statement calling to end DEI in federal science funding:
https://academicfreedom.org/afa-calls-for-end-to-required-diversity-statements-in-federal-grant-funding/
Oops -- posted comment on the wrong thread. Please disregard.
I hope someone with more tech and business savvy than I develops a pin that women who don't agree with this "women are too fragile to speak for themselves and must invoke third party enforcers to destroy men who flirt with them or otherwise make them uncomfortable" can wear to advertise this rejection of the reigning belief. Maybe connected to a database where women publicly pledge "I will tell a man to stop bothering me and only report to authorities if I have attempted to deal with this man in good faith." I don't know that men would necessarily trust it, but it would be a start.
maybe a tee shirt that reads "Decriminalize Men"
Thanks for writing this summary, otherwise I wouldn't have become aware of Gertsberg's 84-page paper (too long for me to do more than skim) or Strumia's tweet (too short to trust on its own). Gertsberg studied 83 female academics from 58 universities, and also analyzed the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The author claims that the effect was larger from MeToo than the pandemic!
I feel a sense of futility in such studies along the lines of confirmation bias, as in your words, "It comes as no surprise that the #MeToo movement did indeed reduce the number of scientific collaborations between men and women...."
You also wrote, "many men secretly confided to me that yes, they do not volunteer to mentor junior women and are circumspect ..." which makes me wonder if there are anonymous surveys that simply ask academics that sort of question, with a sampling technique that insures that respondents can feel secure to respond truthfully without implicating themselves (like, "for each T/F answer, please roll a die each time and mark the opposite of your true answer only if the roll is a 6"). I know there are such techniques - my example may not be the best in practice, but you get the idea. Of course, surveys of how people claim to behave and how they actually behave is another matter.
Astronomy Allies apparently serve a similar purpose to the ones you describe in SSE.
The normal non-insane people need to go on the warpath to fight this shit. Here's what I would do - file anonymous complaints about every single one of the people who came up with this idea. Accuse them of sexual crimes. Turn their weapon of destruction against them.
This is brilliant! Though I don't think I could bring myself to lie. But I could truthfully accuse them of creating a hostile, condescending environment, as a woman.
Please submit a comment to oppose the changes to title IX, if the changes pass, due process for sexual accusations will virtually eliminated
We also need strong pushback on the abuse of framing and shaming terminology that was built into “sexual harassment” law by Catharine McKinnon et Al back in the 1980s. It was defined first for sexual extortion an abuse of power on the rape spectrum. Now it’s anything a woman declares as making her uncomfortable, but the consequences to accused bring the full rape shaming umbrella. Most modern complaints are for interpersonal annoyances neither sexual nor harassing
excellent article and yet another example how good intentions lead to bad outcomes...thanks for writing this
"It’s clear that well-intentioned actions (protecting women from harassment) can be taken too far."
i.e., https://www.the-sun.com/news/6072174/nightclub-bans-staring-without-getting-verbal-consent/
These sound good: "we are continuously striving to improve our efforts and policies ..." and "If you have concerns or specific questions please email tim@club77.com.au."
Beyond those, the written policies are so inconsistent, maybe it's just a guerrilla marketing campaign.
"... any engagement MUST begin with verbal consent." and reinforced, "Don't forget verbal consent!" Discriminates against the mute primarily and the deaf secondarily.
"Please note Club 77 is on the basement floor and unfortunately not wheelchair accessible." Oh my.
"If we receive reports of any behaviour that has made someone feel uncomfortable, the reported individual will be removed from the venue and the police will be called." Promise? Do Sydney police love frivolous calls?
https://www.club77.com.au/safety-and-harassment-policy
https://www.club77.com.au/accessibility-and-inclusivity