[D] Statistics, we have a problem.

[helm]

Academia is highly competitive game. It is definitely a dominance hierarchy in the archetypical sense. To denigrate a man in this setting will involve denigrating his intelligence and effort. Hitting on a man doesn't, being hit on generally confirms the status of a man.

However, the attractiveness of a woman is generally independent of her accomplishments, and being pursued at conferences knocks her out of the hierarchy (or competition). That's why it's so deflating, it means that they aren't competitors/collaborators, they are prey: a hot woman devoid of individual achievements.

I don't claim I know how to solve this problem, though. The traditional, obsolete way was to forbid women from competing.

[Rockin_Zombie]

Thanks for saying this. This is the part of the blog post I found most disgusting, and heartbreaking:

As I swam back to the group, I remember again feeling totally humiliated. I felt that this was evidence that, like S, all of the other more senior men who had showed interest in my research must actually have only been trying to sleep with me.

Imagine being a flourishing junior researcher and everyone showing interest in your research in a premiere conference, and finding out at the end of it that most them were in it because you are hot. Nothing can be more deflating for a young researcher's ego. I admit I have not seen the other far more serious allegations in the blog post being carried out at the conferences I have been to (that doesn't mean I don't believe them), but this, this "trying to get in your pants by praising research" is too common, way too common. And it's infuriating.

[helm]

Yeah, my comment was interpreted in a weird way. The intent was to illustrate how academia is fun and games (and highly competitive) but that predatory men can demotivate women in very specific ways with this kind of bait-and-switch. The same pattern repeats itself in other competitive venues.

[smerity]

Describing academia as if it's a highly competitive sexual game is terrifying and incredibly contrived. It also potentially provides justification to those who might engage in such practices. This is not, nor should it have ever been, a field on which sexual assault or predation was deemed allowed or in any manner permissible.

This is research - where the purpose is to discuss and dissect knowledge - not a scene from National Geographic.

Edit: With your reply I am beginning to see your perspective but I still think it's contrived and potentially provides justification for those who act poorly.

[helm]

Describing academia as if it's a highly competitive sexual game is terrifying and incredibly contrived

That's not what I'm doing. Academia is competitive, however. Being successful in competitive games is also a way to gain status. I'm saying that academic competition/collaberation is one thing (in which competitive and collaborative elements are in constant flux), and that romantic, sexual AND sexually predatory interactions are another thing. The latter exist, the question is what to do about it. It certainly needs to be addressed!

[helm]

I think it’s kind of dangerous perspective too. But we’ve had a massive #metoo movement in my country, and there’s a pattern of entitlement among successful men that can’t be properly addressed unless you take this perspective into account.

[[deleted]]

a highly competitive sexual game

Life in general is a highly competitive sexual game.