That was a multi-point question, so I'll try to answer all of them. If I leave one out, let me know.
I think the first question was on how to address it. I had started to explain it. If you look again at the model in terms of job gender context, job gender context predicts harassment. When the job gender context is skewed in the direction of males, then there is more harassment. The context includes the number of males compared to the number of women in the workplace.
For example, in jobs that tend to be male dominated, such as construction, the military, and policing, those sorts of traditionally male occupations where there are more men than women, that leads to more harassment. You're absolutely right. If you're a woman working in a context in which there are more men than women, then harassment is more likely to occur.
It also is more likely to occur if you work in a workplace where there are more male supervisors. If there are female supervisors, that kind of gender parity tends to reduce the harassment. You need leaders who are women, and you also need to have a more balanced job gender context.
For the second part of your question on how we can fix this if there is this hierarchical structure, I would again refer you to Dr. John Pryor. He looked at the issue of how it is that harassment occurs in an organization, and from the offender's perspective. He found that some men will never harass, regardless of whether or not they have power over a woman. They're low in the likelihood to sexually harass. There are some men who are high in the likelihood to sexually harass.
You can't give employees a test to find out who's high and who's low, because we'd get into profiling. The good news is that when you have management norms, where the managers are modelling no harassment—