> It's not (solely, or even primarily) personal; it's about testing and understanding the group dynamics, the self-selecting social system (and, sorry, its leadership) and what that whole mix throws up [!] when confronted with a willful rule-breaker. (It all gets especially interesting when the rules are mostly just implied - i.e., habitual, comfy, but undeclared.) If some take the provocation personally - possibly due to some kind of patriarchally inflicted failure anxiety, although there I'm hypothesising (Disclosure: I'm leaning toward yes) - then I'd suggest it's better we all know about that sooner than later.
The technical term for this kind of research is 'trolling'.
Mike