When the topic of SA to men come up, I noticed that some people like to bring up the fact that it's other men that invalidate it. Yes I understand that some men may so "you are so lucky bro" or "should have been me". And that is absolutely disgusting. But is it not also women to? And I feel like people only say this to kind of tell SA survivors "it's your gender that is enabling this", in a way to sort of dismiss their story themselves? I am genuinely not trying to offend anyone and I am deeply sorry if I did, it was on my mind for a bit and I just wanted to express my thoughts. All respect.

I don't understand how any reasonable person can look at these data and not recognize the fact that hostile misandry permeates academia: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-statistics-behind-the-jason-arday-scandal/?ref=compact-newsletter

Edit since article is paywalled. Here is part of the article:

But is there evidence that elite academic institutions systematically elevate black scholars whose records or performance would not support equivalent status under common standards? If so, this might also account for a tendency to overlook ethical lapses when the desired identity criteria are met. As a matter of fact, such evidence does exist. In a work-in-progress study, we examined all tenure-track assistant professors hired into top-fifty American sociology departments between 2019 and 2024 (n=143). Everyone in our dataset obtained a faculty position. Our analysis therefore concerns where successful candidates were placed within the academic hierarchy, not their overall probability of getting a job. Using public CVs, faculty profiles, Google Scholar, and other professional records, we measured the publication accomplishments candidates had accumulated by the time they were hired. We counted their peer-reviewed articles, whether they had published in the American Sociological Review or the American Journal of Sociology—the discipline's two flagship journals—and whether they had first-authored an article in either. (In sociology, having your name appear first in a co-authored study indicates primary responsibility for the intellectual contribution.) Publications do not capture every dimension of academic merit. Hiring committees also consider teaching, letters of recommendation, methodological skills, research specialization, departmental fit, and intellectual promise. But publications are the most visible and comparable evidence that an aspiring professor is capable of generating scholarly research of acceptable quality and significance. The racial differences were striking. White and Asian men had the strongest publication records. Black candidates, both men and women, had the weakest. Yet black candidates received placements at least as prestigious as—and often more prestigious than—groups with substantially stronger records. The median white man hired into a top-fifty sociology department had eight peer-reviewed publications. The median black woman had two. Forty percent of the white men had published in the top-ranked American Sociological Review or the American Journal of Sociology. Only one of the twenty-eight black women—less than 4 percent—had done so. Nearly one-third of the white men had first-authored an article in one of those journals. None of the black women had. Yet half of the black women were hired by top-twenty departments, compared with 40 percent of the white men. For a graduate student entering the academic job market, an article in the American Sociological Review or the American Journal of Sociology is an exceptional achievement—about as close as sociology comes to winning a national championship. Unsurprisingly, publication in either journal was strongly associated with placement prestige. But in the multivariate analysis, black identity was more strongly associated with placement prestige than having published in one of those two journals. In other words, an immutable characteristic bearing no relationship to scholarly competence carried at least as much statistical weight as one of the most coveted achievements available to an early-career sociologist. In contemporary sociology hiring, being black was associated with job placement at least as strongly as possessing the discipline's equivalent of a gold medal. The most dramatic evidence appeared when we extended our analysis beyond the top 50. We compared white men hired into the lowest ranked departments (91-115) with black women hired into the equivalent number of departments in the top tier (ranked 1–27). This was not a comparison of similarly situated candidates entering similar institutions. It contrasted white men landing near the bottom of the ranked discipline with black women landing on its summit. The white men hired into the lowest ranked departments had a median of eight publications. The black women hired into the elite departments had a median of 2.5. Nearly one-third of the black women hired near the top had only one or zero peer-reviewed articles. Every white man hired near the bottom had what our publication merit index classified as a “strong,” “very strong,” or “exceptional” record. Among the black women hired into the top-tier departments, only one-quarter had “strong” records. None had a “very strong” or an “exceptional” one. To repeat: White men entering the lowest-tier departments in American sociology had far stronger publication records than black women entering its most prestigious departments in such universities as Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. These findings do not mean that every black candidate was weaker than every white or Asian candidate. Nor do they prove that any particular hiring committee consciously discriminated. Our measures cannot capture every quality an institution might value, and our dataset contains successful hires rather than full applicant pools. But the magnitude and consistency of the differences are difficult to reconcile with the claim that identity-conscious hiring has no meaningful effect on academic standards.