ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Context and Variation

Context and Variation


Human behavior, evolutionary medicine… and ladybusiness.
Context and Variation Home

“I had no power to say ‘that’s not okay:’” Reports of harassment and abuse in the field

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



It was getting late, the student center all but deserted. My old friend and I had a table to ourselves, awkwardly wedged among the chairs that had been set in a circle for an invited talk I had just given to some undergraduates about issues for women in science.

My friend alluded to having a challenging field site. Her face, which was usually open and bright, with a smile so infectious and delighted and thoroughly optimistic you couldn’t help but love her, was subdued, careful. She talked around it for a while. Then she told me of her sexual assault in the field.

The table felt too big. I can’t remember if I actually reached across it to take her hand or not, because suddenly the distance between us seemed so great. I was at a loss to know how to help or support my friend.

Another day, another story. Again I’m out of town to give a talk, and an acquaintance and I are borrowing someone’s office for a meeting. This person is eager to meet, bright and interesting and motivated to do her research. There is a shift in her research trajectory, and I ask about it. Without skipping a beat, she explains the systematic sexual harassment she experienced at her field site, and the ways in which her lack of complicity led to her not being welcome there. There were obvious ways in which her departure from this field site has hurt her career. I was struck by her furious, fiery expression.

You know these women, because they have shared their stories on my blog. Since then, my blog comment thread, email inbox, my office and several conferences became spaces where I was bombarded with these stories. These women almost never named names, just rushed through their story as quickly as possible in a torrent of words, each story horrifying in its own way. Some were angry, some were devastated. Some were just numb, not meeting my eyes, telling the story in a monotone. These were fresh encounters from just the last field season, or had happened years ago. Each one felt like a new physical hurt when I heard them.

From there, Heather Shattuck-Heidorn and M. Elle Saine invited me to participate in an American Association of Physical Anthropology symposium on ethics. They wanted me to put together a talk on ethics in field site management, as my blog posts had opened a bit of a can of worms in the field. Yet I struggled to figure out how to speak to my colleagues about the chilly climate at field sites when all I had were confidential anecdotes and two blog posts.

Biological anthropology has a long, feminist tradition of women and men interrogating sexism in the workplace, as well as researching and prioritizing female behaviors and friendships and reproductive strategies in human evolution. If there is any field-based science that has the tools to look at the chilly climate at field sites, it is us.

 

Our project: “I never thought anyone would take this seriously”

This is where my great collaborators come in: Katie Hinde, Robin Nelson, and Julienne Rutherford. Their analytical expertise and passion for improving conditions for women in science, not to mention our deep friendship, made them the natural choices to make sure this project was done to the highest possible technical standard. It also meant none of us would have to hold on to these stories alone. Over the last few months we have supported each other and helped carry the burden of the horrible stories we now know, and made sure our preliminary analyses were performed with rigor.

The surveys we have done so far are quite simple: we collected personal and field demographics to tell us about the research participants and their field sites. We asked some questions about factors found in the literature that correlate with a chilly climate for women (e.g., gender segregation, differences in treatment between men and women, gender ratios), events that the literature characterizes as sexual harassment (e.g., comments about physical appearance, unwanted sexual jokes, comments about gender differences in aptitude), and events the literature characterizes as sexual assault (e.g., physical contact that was unwanted or where the victim felt she could not say no). Thinking leadership and personal relationships might be additional factors that explain the incidence of harassment, we asked about traits that exemplify good and bad field site directors, and in the cases of harassment or assault, the rank of the perpetrator.

The interviews are a chance for research participants to elaborate on their survey answers, share stories from the field, and connect for themselves the proximate and more cultural and structural factors that help explain the good or bad experiences they had in the field.

We have 124 participants so far for the survey, and 16 phone interviews. 79% of the sample is female, 86% white, 85% heterosexual, and 81% from the United States, though 15 countries are represented. Because of the small number of participants from underrepresented groups, we are not breaking down the demographics too much, as a way of protecting participants’ identities. Biological anthropology is, after all, a fairly small discipline.

What I’m sharing today are the very preliminary results from the first wave of recruitment. We have only begun to look at relationships between personal demographics and incidences of abuse for the quantitative work, and some core themes that unite the interviews in the qualitative work.

 

Quantitative analysis: “I had no way to say ‘that’s not okay’”

One of the first questions we had was whether there was a perception bias in the reporting of harassment in our sample – many people often assume women are more sensitive or even overreport harassment. So we looked at how many women and men observed sexual harassment at their field site.

We found no difference in the rate at which women and men reported sexual harassment in our sample.

So then we looked at the rate at which women and men experience sexual harassment and assault. 59% of our sample reported it, with women having a three times greater risk than men. 19% of our sample reported sexual assault, but while women did again have greater numbers, the male sample size in this group (n = 1) was too small to test this statistically.

Incidence of sexual harassment in our sample among women and men.

Who perpetrates sexual harassment according to our sample.

But we also wanted to know who perpetrated these acts. In academia, it is normal for there to be a hierarchy from undergraduate, to graduate student, to postdoc, faculty, and tenured faculty. And people above you in the hierarchy can have control over your success in your career. For both harassment and assault, we found most of the perpetrators were individuals superior in the hierarchy than the victims – so for instance, a faculty member harassing a graduate student.

 

Qualitative analysis: “And I just didn’t know what to do”

The purpose of the interviews was twofold: first, we wanted to give respondents a chance to share their stories, and second, we hoped to identify some themes that seemed to differentiate the good and bad field site experiences. What factors seemed to crop up again and again in the respondents that report harassment? Do respondents frame their experiences and observations in common ways? Are there cultural or structural issues impeding progress on these issues?

How the participant framed her experience. We found that many victims identified themselves as “young,” “naïve,” or “green,” and also questioned or blamed themselves at some point during or after their harassment. Both victims and witnesses to abuse, harassment and assault described themselves as paralyzed or scared. Several female respondents described feeling targeted or under scrutiny due to their gender. And sadly, many respondents expressed frustration that issues of abuse, harassment and assault interfered with their work, expressing different refrains of “I just wanted to do my science!”

One male participant detailed systemic, institutional abuse that happened at his site, with too many graphic, potentially identifying stories to impart here. But again and again, he came back to the awful helplessness he felt at having to bear witness to constant attacks on his colleagues, and his understandable fear of the consequences:

“As a man who was ambitious at the time and didn’t know how to intervene, it was a weird place to be because these are my friends. We spent time in the field so you can’t build friendships anywhere else and I was unable to, or paralyzed for fear that my dissertation would be shut down. I relied on the site and access would be shut down, my career would have been shut down, if I was going to stand up to this guy.”

In fact, fear of retribution, and in some cases, stories of retribution for speaking up, were common among witnesses and victims.

Characterization of interpersonal relationships. Many respondents observed that there were gender disparities in the assignment of tasks, like cooking, cleaning and shopping, but also that there were disparities in terms of access to resources. In some cases only men were allowed the more enjoyable or lucrative assignments, or only men had access to certain specimens.

Another observation that was common was that having women in power helped reduce inappropriate or sexist comments, unfair conditions, and harassment. This wasn’t a universal, because women were perpetrators too, but when men were the perpetrators, the presence of women in leadership positions changed their behavior.

Sometimes field site directors want to be supportive, but privilege the data being collected over the safety of their students. One female respondent described an assault and attempted rape by a fellow field site worker that she fought off and reported to her field site director.

“So I talked to the director that night and he was asking me what I should do… because he has known this guy for ten years… He was like, ‘in different cultures that’s not abnormal.’ But I was like this is a violation….

“He did talk to the guy he just said that he needed to stay away from me and… I don’t know how much it worked…. Because at night we’d have a fire… and he’d still find his way to come and sit next to me and sit there and try to pet my arm and I’d have to tell him to stop, but I think I put the director in a weird position… especially since this was sort of our liaison to this community… if you piss him off and he stopped cooperating, then we could have real problems with what we were doing.”

Even as this respondent identifies her assault and attempted rape as a “violation,” she places blame on herself for putting her director in the position of having to decide what to do and risk the research project.

Overall climate. This quote also identifies a broad issue that cuts across many field sites, related to how one adapts to or handles cultural differences. Male and female respondents noticed how men often benefitted from being at a field site in a culture more patriarchal than the one where they had grown up, and that some men gladly adopted those cultural norms while in the field. Others described the constant tension of dealing with these cultural differences in what they perceived was their professional space. Several respondents also noted explicit, sometimes constant, comments about different capabilities of women and men in the field.

Finally, a number of female respondents articulated a real sadness for the way they felt they were being, or in some cases had already been, pushed out of biological anthropology. Perhaps the most poignant response came from the interview of a current female graduate student:

“It’s not like someone specifically says, ‘You’re not welcome here anymore.’ It’s just a constant, subtle attitude that makes you feel like you don’t want to be there anymore. And that made me really mad, too, that the idea that someone could take something that I thought would be great, and sort of take it away from me and say, ‘Yeah, this isn’t for you. You’re not welcome here.’”

The question is: do we want to impoverish our discipline and push out bright, motivated young students, by continuing to allow abuse and harassment?


Conclusions: “It’s all about who’s watching”

We heard many reports of women not being allowed to do certain kinds of field work, being driven or warned away from particular field sites, and being denied access to research materials that were freely given to men (and men who were given access were the ones telling us these things). Ultimately, not being able to go to certain field sites, having to change field sites, or not being able to access research materials means women are denied the opportunity to ask certain research questions in our field. This has the potential to limit the CVs of women and given them permanently lesser research trajectories. This can lead to not getting jobs, or getting lower-tier jobs. It also means certain research questions may get primarily asked by one gender, and reducing the diversity of people doing research has been shown to reduce the diversity and quality of the work.

The culture at these problematic field sites isn’t going to change just because we will it. Those of us in power need to implement policies that will protect individuals most at risk, and help create field site conditions that minimize risk altogether. We need human subjects approval, animal research approval, data management plans, lab safety plans, postdoc mentoring plans in order to conduct research. It’s time to require some sort of code of conduct for researchers at field sites, with clear mechanisms to make it easy for people to report harassment.

Too many of us, the authors of this study included, have told ourselves and others that we just need to “suck it up,” just endure one more day, to keep our heads down and power through. Survival in field-based academic science can’t just be about who can put up with or witness abuse the longest – that is not an appropriate metric to measure who is the best at their science. From here on out, let’s commit to opening up conversations about these issues, rather than avoiding or talking around them. Let’s continue to be the progressive field that interrogates gender disparities, and lead the way for the rest of the field-based sciences.

"I had no power to say 'that's not okay:'" Reports of harassment and abuse in the field from Kate Clancy

 

Next steps

Fill out the survey, it doesn’t matter if you experiences were good or bad, we want them all! Share far and wide: http://bit.ly/fieldexp13

Follow #safe13 on Twitter!

 

A few quick answers for those with questions…

Q: How can you tell the prevalence of harassment and assault from these data?

A: We can’t. This survey wasn’t intended to assess prevalence, and we don’t believe there is a feasible study design that would make this possible. However we are renewing our recruitment efforts to try and get a more diverse, even larger sample over the next month for our more thorough analysis for the paper.

Q: Isn’t there selection bias in a study of this kind?

A: Probably yes. We are guessing that it is more likely that people with strong or especially notable experiences would take a survey like this. This is why we cannot say that our statistics match some kind of overall prevalence in the field of harassment or assault. Instead, this project allows us to get at least some sense of the scope of the problem.

And to our mind, one single case of harassment or assault is too many, because as a feminist science we think anthropology should be intolerant of that kind of behavior. It impoverishes the field because it reduces the diversity of the sample of people who could ask exciting questions and do groundbreaking research.

Q: Didn’t you hear about any good field experiences?

A: Absolutely! We heard many accounts of respectful, engaging, fun field experiences that made people happy and made them decide to be anthropologists. For the preliminary results and only a 15 minute talk, we focused on the bad experiences because these are the ones we urgently need to change. But in our paper we hope to more thoroughly analyze good and bad experiences to determine what factors seem to lead more to one type or the other at a given field site.

Q: What are your future directions with this research?

A: In addition to upping our sample and rerunning existing analyses, we have question types in our survey we were unable to analyze for our preliminary results. We still have a number of field site demographics that need to be analyzed: group size and composition, leadership gender, as well as participant-reported traits for good and bad field site directors. We also plan even more rigorous thematic analyses with non-anthropologist auditors for the existing and second-round interviews.

 

Kate Clancy About the Author: Dr. Kate Clancy is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois. She studies the evolutionary medicine of women’s reproductive physiology, and blogs about her field, the evolution of human behavior and issues for women in science. Find her comment policy here. Follow on Twitter @KateClancy.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 21 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. paleojim 12:54 pm 04/13/2013

    As a scientist who has had numerous young scientists interns under our paleo-program here in Utah, the watch word is:

    Menter; not molest her!!!

    Not a difficult concept!

    Link to this
  2. 2. Bashir 1:43 pm 04/13/2013

    So what about the people this should be reported to? Is that most leaders have tons of incidents reported that they just sit on?

    Link to this
  3. 3. kagillogly 1:56 pm 04/13/2013

    The AAA did a survey re: fieldwork dangers a couple of years ago. It would be interesting to compare these. Anna Kerttula of NSF and I talked about these issues some years ago (we are both cultural anthropologists, working in places where there was considerable political change), and I believe that Anna edited a book with accounts of women’s experiences in fieldwork.
    This is something we absolutely must share with our students before we send them out to the field.
    I sometimes share my stories with students as I want them to understand the adjustments that are necessary in fieldwork. I am fortunate in that by the time I did fieldwork in which I was a woman on my own, I was also older, more knowledgeable about how manage things, and very self-confidant. But I was always on guard, always assessing, always having to be aware so that I could BOTH partake in field experiences AND protect myself. And I did not experience this from people with power to end my fieldwork (as you document here). OK, well I kind of did, but I had other allies and I used the cultural capital of my institutional affiliations when necessary. I think I benefitted from having worked with teams that were very supportive before I did the fieldwork in this region alone. It meant that I had had a chance to experiment in methods to protect myself. Had I gone into the field without that cross-cultural experience, my stories of survival could have been quite different.
    And self-protection takes so much mental energy – mental energy that I would normally have used to think about data and ideas. I was back in the US over a year before, one day, the veil lifted from my eyes and I realized that I did not need to constantly protect myself anymore.

    Link to this
  4. 4. timcdlucas 4:00 pm 04/13/2013

    Really interesting story. I’m a bit confused about some of the statistics though.

    I think there must be some statistics referring to harrasment while some refer to assault but I often can’t tell which is which.

    “with women having a three times greater risk than men.” But the figure shows ~40% for males and ~60% for females.

    And I don’t understand what the n=1 for males is. If you are testing proportions (1 out of 22 males reporting sexual assult) then a statistical test is fine. If n=1, why is this group much smaller than the n=22 for sexual harrasment.

    Just interested to understand a bit better.

    Link to this
  5. 5. egonxti 12:04 am 04/14/2013

    In linguistic anthropology we tend to work in small field teams, or no teams at all. I work in sites where it is not ok to be queer. I am petrified to let anybody find out that I am gay. I have had the good fortune in two of my field sites to work with some strong women leaders, who have done a much better job than I have at making these sites safer.

    I am a survivor of sexual assault, not in the field. In the field, I have not been able to use my voice. I have witnessed countless instances of harassment and hate speech, and have found myself in situations where it was clear that to out myself would put me in risk of death, or worse.

    I go numb in these situations. I zone out. I become analytical. I query where this hatred comes from, and spend a lot of time ruminating about whether it is a local, traditional hatred, or something more global and insidious. In many cases, it’s clear that it comes from missionaries. My reaction is classic PTSD. I am not there. I am in my head, but I remove myself from risk by being silent and resigned. I have never had to witness harassment or assault of anybody else, but I feel unable to advocate for my own safety apart from just compartmentalising my life.

    I take perverse comfort in the finding reported here, that fellow anthropologists are more likely than field consultants to abuse us. I fear, however, that the problem of locally based abuse is less tractable. I don’t know if I could have been better prepared for it than I was. I don’t know if there’s anything we can do about it. We have a recent tradition in anthropology of being self-conscious of our position as colonisers. We feel reticent about challenging local structures that put us in risk. Maybe that’s just me projecting it onto my discipline, but I doubt it. I am extremely grateful that this dialog is happening.

    Career-wise, I don’t know what to say. My career has been profoundly and adversely affected by my experiences of sexual violence outside of the field. My time in the field is increasingly conditioned by my fear of repetitions of such experiences, in situations that seem even more dangerous than the situations which have hurt me before. I cancelled my most recent field trip, and have added at least 18 months to the completion of my degree as a result. This is serious business.

    Link to this
  6. 6. archmeg 5:30 am 04/14/2013

    Kate, did you all ask what stage of study/career your participants were in when they had their harassment and abuse incidents? I’m thinking that undergrads are less likely to have individual mentoring that grad students might get, and thus might be less likely to feel like they have a person to consult if something happens in the field, or someone to talk to them before they go. But I have no idea if that plays out in reality. You also have so many undergrads who go try out field work and don’t pursue careers in anthro – they’re likely missing from the data at this point as well, which is unfortunate. I’d suspect early interactions of this kind might keep many people from pursuing careers that require more fieldwork.

    Link to this
  7. 7. syzygyygyzys 5:46 pm 04/14/2013

    Dr. Clancy,

    Is harassment more prevalent in anthropological field work groups than other collections of people? Most of my experience with groups of people is at work. When I see it, I deal with it immediately. If this level of harassment is widespread, then I need to figure out how to better identify it. I’m not questioning the data. I’m concerned that I’m letting people down.

    It surprises me that so many otherwise intelligent people in these examples engage in harassment. I would have expected them to be more enlightened.

    Link to this
  8. 8. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:07 pm 04/15/2013

    Hi syzygyygyzys, thanks for your comment. I don’t know that it’s any more prevalent in anthro sites. Our study is unable to get at prevalence, and in fact I don’t know that there really is a method where it is possible to do this.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:08 pm 04/15/2013

    Hi archmeg, yes, we did ask those questions but didn’t include all that in this preliminary analysis. We were running out of time with the AAPAs coming up so quick. And I agree, I think a lot of people who have had field experiences but have left anthro are probably missing from this sample. If you know any, please pass along the survey for our second wave of recruiting!

    Link to this
  10. 10. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:11 pm 04/15/2013

    egonxti, thank you so much for writing and sharing your experience. You are not alone in your experience, which is terrible, but I also hope you know you’re not alone in the many people who want to work together to think about how to make field experiences — these very important professional spaces — become safer for everyone. We also have heard many people who have said they had wonderful field experiences (or at least ones free of harassment/assault) but detailed significant harassment in their home departments, conferences, or laboratories. So even though our survey is confined to field experiences, we are aware of the many other professional spaces anthropologists have to deal with abuse.

    Link to this
  11. 11. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:13 pm 04/15/2013

    Hi timcdlucas — please check out the slideshare below for more clarification. Women don’t have three times greater RATES of harassment, but greater RISK, this is because of the odds ratio we got from the chi-squared we ran on harassment and abuse questions in the survey. The n = 1 is related to the single male participant who reported sexual assault in the survey. Thanks for asking.

    Link to this
  12. 12. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:14 pm 04/15/2013

    Thanks so much for writing kagillogly – the vigilance you speak of is something we collaborators talked about a LOT as a major stressor in the field for some of our participants. And thanks so much for directing me to the survey/Kerttula’s work. We hadn’t seen these in our first sweeps of the literature.

    Link to this
  13. 13. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:16 pm 04/15/2013

    Hi Bashir, sometimes the person you should be reporting to is the perpetrator. Sometimes the participant wasn’t sure who to talk to. Sometimes the participant didn’t feel safe going to that person, or worried bringing up this issue would make them look like a less serious scientist. In fact, this came up a lot — any mention of poor conditions, chilly climate, harassment or assault on the part of a woman immediately LABELLED her “woman” rather than just “scientist.” And so in many of these cases, these women who dared to speak up got targeted or teased MORE for doing so. “Oh, the LADIES have a problem with x, guess we should stop.” That sort of thing.

    And paleojim — that sounds like a good first ground rule for a field site.

    Link to this
  14. 14. bioanthgirl 1:27 pm 04/15/2013

    I was talking to a few of my colleagues after your talk at the AAPAs, and we would love to see a breakdown of experiences are primate behavior field sites vs. paleontological/bioarcheological field sites if you have that data. It is striking that in the PA women’s mentoring network, primate behavior seems to be better represented than paleo by more senior members of the field and we wondered if that might filter into better field site experiences for women studying primate behavior vs. paleontology considering your finding that a more senior female tended to stop or mitigate the poor behavior.

    Link to this
  15. 15. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 1:33 pm 04/15/2013

    Hi bioanthgirl, thanks so much for writing. We worry that parsing some of these experiences by subfield could make it so that our participants lose some confidentiality, and they are our highest priority. I’m also unsure what that data would offer us, aside from the other metrics we plan on exploring (group size, leadership style, leadership gender, gender ratio). Unfortunately, the most I can say is that every single subfield that I know of was represented in these data.

    Link to this
  16. 16. rgargett 11:30 pm 04/15/2013

    Hi, Kate,
    Thanks are in order to you and your collaborators for having the guts to stand up and speak the truth to power. Let’s just hope all the hard work doesn’t end up in Denigration Alley, which is so often the case when the male power structure is threatened with the truth.
    Keep fighting the good fight.
    Rob Gargett
    thesubversivearchaeologist.com

    Link to this
  17. 17. secretagent3180 4:43 pm 04/16/2013

    Kate, Let me respectfully suggest that the question is not “what do we want to do about this.” The question should be, “what is right and wrong”. Otherwise, that one guy has a legitimate defense, that this is OK in some cultures. You are implying this is up for a vote. What is your basis for saying one set of morals is better than another? As long as one culture or one set of values is just as valid as any other, I don’t see that you can have a reason to hope this will go away, especially if that basis is subject to the tyranny of the mob.

    Link to this
  18. 18. alexandras1765 9:58 pm 04/23/2013

    I am a young female student about to head out into a new country for a field school. I took this article as precautionary to how I should make sure to look and act.

    The problem I see now amongst my peers is that the Western media and corporate marketing has created a warped idea of how young American women should behave. Unfortunately, what works on screen, isn’t applicable to the real world.

    I am beginning to realize that if you are really there for science, you have to dress and act more like a man — or they will get confused! When men see makeup, hair products, cute outfits, etc. all they can think of is stupid bimbos who want sex, no matter how vast the intellectual prowess beneath the cosmetics.

    I don’t mean that women bring sexual harassment upon ourselves because it’s never okay to treat someone like that. But there has to be understanding that men evolved to see females as sex objects, not equals. What we are dealing with has deep genetic basis. They can’t just stop because the law tells them to.

    When I go on my field study, I plan to dress conservatively, not bring my makeup and not engage in egocentric flirtatious behavior. It’s a small sacrifice to make in return for being taken seriously by men. In my experience, men don’t just randomly sexually harass women. They sexually harass the ones whom they’ve already labeled as meek sluts somewhere in their mind.

    Link to this
  19. 19. Kate Clancy in reply to Kate Clancy 10:42 pm 04/23/2013

    While I think you should dress however you like, alexandras1765, I wouldn’t necessarily take our preliminary results as a cautionary tale for how YOU should be behaving. Rather, I think this is a cautionary tale for people in charge of field sites, so that they can set ground rules for acceptable behavior. People — women and men — can be targeted for harassment regardless of what they wear. Most of this behavior came from higher up in the hierarchy, remember, and many respondents noted that the harassment was more about power than sex. I think we can do a lot more to prevent harassment and abuse by teaching people not to misbehave in the first place, rather than teaching women certain kinds of dress that may or may not ultimately keep them from being targeted.

    Link to this
  20. 20. teacup_1 3:39 am 05/27/2013

    Dr Clancy,

    Thank you for preparing this research project and for bringing to light the adversity that many fieldworkers suffer due to gender and sexuality. I returned from my first immersion field trip and promptly had a nervous breakdown. The courage it took to return to the field after what I experienced has been a battle. Having traveled in my fieldsite prior to my research I expected a degree of sexual harassment, but nothing could have prepared me for what I experienced – the most shattering aspect being that regardless of how hard I tried to fit in in terms of dress, behaviour ect I was still treated as loose, easy and an object of sick entertainment. I was threatened, stalked and constantly shouted at my men on the street, I developed insomnia and cried constantly. When I sought support I was told to put up with it and hope that no-one raped me. Hardly a satisfying or helpful response. The more important point though it that the fact that I eventually cracked under the pressure doesn’t make me a bad anthropologist. I am human and no-one should have to suffer like that just to do their job.

    Link to this
  21. 21. teacup_1 3:57 am 05/27/2013

    Oh and also there was nothing ‘egocentric or flirtatious’ about my conduct with men or with anyone for that matter. I was covered in local clothes everyday, I lived in a women only hostel and never went out at night. If you think that dressing conservatively will prevent harassment then all I can say is good luck out there.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Special Universe

Get the latest Special Collector's edition

Secrets of the Universe: Past, Present, Future

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X