Introducing a premise you believe to be true is done differently, for example: "it happens to be the case..."
So anyway, the point of the little mathematical exercise was to show that even highly skewed outcomes in "harassment" don't allow you to conclude that there is an environment that is open or encouraging, at least not if you have an unequally distributed population, because in such skewed populations, you get highly skewed outcomes even if the propensity is equal (which it most likely isn't).
> People harass other people when the environment is open to it or encourages it.
> That seems to happen in a lot of male-dominated environments.
Evidence that this is at all causative? Especially given the numbers I provided.
Anyway, another big factor is that in humans, the male is very much required to initiate, and that something like 70% of relationships happen on the job (and yes the drive to reproduce is one of our most powerful motivators, otherwise we'd be extinct as a species). Couple that with socially awkward nerds and the weird expansion of the definition of "harassment", particularly in the US, and I think you've got it covered.
Oh, and add companies like Uber where breaking laws, rules and norms is company policy.
You've done good math (I think?) on a false premise.
People harass other people when the environment is open to it or encourages it. That seems to happen in a lot of male-dominated environments.
People aren't compelled to harass or not in a pre-programmed way and they don't do it evenly no matter what surrounds them. They respond to incentives and their surroundings.