The Hipocritcal Standard of Harassment

[elder999]

Jenna, I think you are going to have to come up and meet the lads, they are nothing like what I think you imagine. With the soldiers trust is more than a word, you trust your very life to them, they trust each other implicitly, there are no secrets between them. I often find that civvies think soldiers are rough, tough, ignorant and you don't let your womenfolk near them, you probably shouldn't, not because they will ravage them but they will probably charm them into bed, no force needed, no force applied. Some may seduce your sons as well don't forget we have gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals as well in the forces. All are accepted, the only criteria is how well you do your job.

Or not.

Sexual harassment rife in armed forces

· 1 in 4 women reports offensive male behaviour
· Defence chief admits urgent action is needed


Nearly half the women felt there was a problem with sexual harassment in the services, and the longer they had been in the service, the more likely they were to think so. By contrast, most servicemen involved in focus groups on the subject did not think there was a problem.
The research is the first phase in an action plan against sexual harassment that the armed forces have agreed to implement, and reflects an acknowledgment by senior MoD officials that a cultural change is needed.
"We have a problem we must deal with urgently," said the chief of the defence staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. "This is not about political correctness. It is about operational effectiveness."

Seen here

ANd here

Of course,those stories, and the other ones I found like it, are at least 6 and sometimes 7 years old-it's entirely possible the "action plan" the British military was discussing in the articles got this little problem squared away.....though there is no follow up article to be found that says as much., and , "THE GUYS," being, well.....guys` I kind of tend to doubt it.

I won't even get into what a "British armed forces, rape" search turned up: Search About 21,400,000 results (0.20 seconds)

 

[Sukerkin]

Bear in mind what Tez does for a living ... I reckon she counts as a reliable source for a boots-on-the-ground view on that sort of thing.

 

[elder999]

Bear in mind what Tez does for a living ... I reckon she counts as a reliable source for a boots-on-the-ground view on that sort of thing.

Or has blinders on about such things. Or simply hasn`t seen them. I mean, a survey of British military women, conducted by the military, offered the damning statistic that 25% of them felt they were subjected to offensive behavior-that sounds suspiciously like a "boots on the ground" view to me.

 

[Sukerkin]

Whatever - not in the mood for internet claptrap so I'll shut up and go away.

 

[elder999]

Whatever - not in the mood for internet claptrap so I'll shut up and go away.

Somehow the BBC, two major British papers, and your own "chief of Defence staff" at the time constitute "internet claptrap" on my part?

 

[Tez3]

Or not.



Seen here

ANd here

Of course,those stories, and the other ones I found like it, are at least 6 and sometimes 7 years old-it's entirely possible the "action plan" the British military was discussing in the articles got this little problem squared away.....though there is no follow up article to be found that says as much., and , "THE GUYS," being, well.....guys` I kind of tend to doubt it.

I won't even get into what a "British armed forces, rape" search turned up: Search About 21,400,000 results (0.20 seconds)

Actually I was answering Jennas specific post, the squaddies aren't angels but to assume they will all take no for yes isn't true.
Sexual harrassment... surveys are done every couple of years, like most surveys only those who feel strongly about something will fill them in. These surveys aren't the views of the majority of women in the services who can't be bothered with filling forms in, so what does 1 in 4 women mean when only a half dozen bother ticking boxes? (You could do a survey on here asking who was right wing/left wing, you couldn't take the answer as being true for America as a whole could you?) If it were compulsory and contained the views of all females it would be a worthwhile survey. Incidentally we get surveys on everything and most chuck them in the bin, the MOD thinks if it surveys something and 'acts' on it, they appear to be doing something, like Sir Jock Stirrup saying they take it seriously etc etc etc. It's jobs for the Civil Servants, the Equal Opportunities Commision pushes these things and the MOD has to be in there looking as if they care. What it actually does is make women look like victims, that they need protecting, they do it with ethinc minorities as well. Those who feel there's a lot of sexual harrassment or who feel they have grounds for getting out of the military will fill them in so like all statisitics you will get an end result that doesn't tell all the truth. Undoubtedly there is sexual harrassment, if it gets reported it will be investigated and action taken. There's bullying as well, of course there is, there's women who do both as well as men.

There are 196,650 women in the Armed Forces, in 2007 the survey was sent to 5286 of them, less than 2000 replied. I have read that and the 2005 report.

Rape...the most common complaint is by women who go back to a soldier's room (his bedroom) and then say afterwards they are raped. First of all why would you go with a complete stranger to his room? It's not his house, there's no coffee available, no cocoa and no bikkies so yes they go back for sex. Now if they change their mind half way through? that's an issue that many have views on. I'll leave that for now.
We do have bad apples, we do have cases of rape, we even have cases of women raping women but a good many of the 'rapes' on that Google list are political allegations. I don't know if we saw the same list but a lot of that stuff wasn't even about the army or even rape, a fair few stories about the American forces as well.

 

[Tez3]

It would seem allegations of sexual harrassment complaints made by men are going up in the USA.
http://www.hrmreport.com/news/male-sexual-harassment-claims-rising/


Views on Sir Jock Stirrup. do read the posts under the article.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5698578/military-manoeuvres.thtml

 

[Sukerkin]

Somehow the BBC, two major British papers, and your own "chief of Defence staff" at the time constitute "internet claptrap" on my part?

Apologies - very bad day. What I was 'blunderbussing' was that facet of Net interaction in which everything seems to be an argument rather than exchange of information.

 

[Tez3]

Or has blinders on about such things. Or simply hasn`t seen them. I mean, a survey of British military women, conducted by the military, offered the damning statistic that 25% of them felt they were subjected to offensive behavior-that sounds suspiciously like a "boots on the ground" view to me.

Well not 25% of the women in the forces, 25% of those who replied to the survey. That would be 196150 women who have no complaints. I don't have a blinkered view of it at all, it would be hard to when one has to investigate and deal with the complaints wouldn't it. Hard to ignore when it's your job to look into these things.

It is actually claptrap, this is the chief of staff, RAF at that who wanted to shut down the RAF, he was is commonly known as a right plonker, who was in the Labour Party's pocket, he was absolutely hated for his so called leadership. If he couldn't be trusted to run the military why would you think his PC survey actually means anything. Ask all service women and get a proper opinion. the survey is not done by the MOD but by the Equal Opportunities Commission, a questionable body at the best of times, it sees discrimination everywhere.

Been called out will come back to this

 

[elder999]

I wasn't arguing, mark-I was only exchanging information.Lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not implying that sexual harassment is or isn`t a"British thing," or anything of the like. I started out by pointing out the cultural and legal differences-what Irene sees as acceptable behavior in the workplace is not here in the U.S., though it does occur, and probably more than we know-that's why there are laws against it. What she sees as acceptable behavior in the military is not in the U.S. military, though it does occur, and probably more than we know.http://www.hrmreport.com/news/male-sexual-harassment-claims-rising/ Considering the statistic about the percentage of rapes that get reported vs. those that actually occur, I'd say there's probably an entire abyss of things that we're blissfully unaware of in that regard-things that she's likely just as blissfully unaware of.

Most people who aren't part of the major corporate world, or government employment in the U.S. probably don't go through the nonsense I do, of having to take training on what constitutes sexual harassment every goddam year-not only so that I don't engage in such behavior, but so that I recognize my obligations if an employee complains to me as their supervisor about such behavior-as well as my organization's liabilities and obligations. Getting back to Caver's original post, it is a very simple default action for an employer to simply dismiss the one complained about out of hand-having been involved in conducting fact-finding investigations for complaints like these-once as the one complained against, and three times as a supervisor-I can say that the process is onerous-and that there are some people who, if such an accusation were made against them, while I would have to go through the required investigation process, I'd probably rather just fire them and get it over with, if that were even an option for me.

Bottom line., in the U.S., professional behavior just does not include touching beyond that required for the job, and minor social interaction like shaking hands-or respecting those that decline to do so for religious or hygenic reasons. That includes touching beyond that that is welcomed by both parties, and may be of the most innocent of character, like my massaging the secretary's shoulders: she liked it, I liked it, but it made others uncomfortable, and it had to stop, or we were "sexually harassing" them, by force of law.

In the U.S., while social interactions outside of work are acceptable for coworkers, and one can ask a coworker out, professional behavior does not include asking a coworker if they'd like a shag, a roll in the hay, to step outside, meet at the Motel 6, or anything of that nature-you might get away with it once, but once anyone told you to cut it out, you better, because the next time you do it makes it a persistent pattern of behavior unwelcome behavior that is grounds for dismissal, if documented,by force of law.Naturally, this does not apply in the case where such queries are welcomed-no one is likely to complain about those, but why it's better not to risk it at work

In the U.S., professional behavior does not include telling jokes of a sexual nature "where they are unwelcome." While you might get away with such jokes, or even find a welcome audience for them for a time, the instant they make anyone uncomfortable, they become unwelcome behavior, and to persist in them is "sexual harassment."

I started my career in nuclear power in 1982, in a power plant, in N.Y. Many of my fellow employees were ex-Navy men. The language and behavior that were socially acceptable in that environment at the time were already becoming "illegal"-the EEOC had recognized and defined sexual harassment in 1980, and the Supreme Court's first case recognizing it as a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took place in 1986- it has taken a lot of changes, both culturally and in my own personal behavior, to get on board with this-as a shop steward and assistant business agent, the then evolving law on "sexual harassment" was part of my labor law education,and that's just the way it is. I had a coworker comment to a young, pretty secretary about her modes of dress-something about her wearing earth tones most of the time, instead of more bright colors-as innocent as that seems, complaints were made, and our boss had to tell him, "Jimmy, cut it out. In these days, that's worse than drugs: with drugs you get rehab and to come back to your job, twice-here, with this stuff, we'll just have to fire you."

In Caver's possible situation, where he might well not think anything of touching someone, male or female, on the shoulder or arm as a way of getting their attention-the equivalent of saying "Hey," he might never have been told that such behavior was unwelcome, or given the opportunity to address it-he was just given the boot the first time someone he'd made uncomfortable said that he touched them on the butt, as they knew he would be.

 

[Jenna]

It's not sexual propostioning as such, it's just being honest, there's nothing false, nothing faked about them, you're chatting, you get on, do you want to shag, no, then that's fine. It leads to nothing else as I said. It doesn't lead to criminal and/or criminal behaviour because everything is in the open, it's not secret, it's not about being tough at all and don't think its the men who are the only ones doing this, it's equal ops in every sense, the female soldiers are no different. There's no pressure on anyone, to be honest it's no different from being offered something to eat or drink, if you don't want anything you say so and that's the end of it. When they are out drinking it's gernerally the lads that come off worst, we have a certain type of female that traps soldiers, they see their life style, their postings and the fact they get houses when they marry as being very attractive so they go all out to trap the lads into getting married. We also get girls who will travel a long way just to sleep with soldiers. considring how many men we have here I can't remember the last time we had an accusation of rape or even sexual harrassment, the lads even when drunk tend not to force anyone, they wouldn't not when there's so many girls laying it on plates for them anyway.

The jokes aren't innapropiate they just aren't understood by civvies for example a well known comedian here went to visit injured servicemen including amputees, they had t shirts on that said 'I survived a suicide bomber' and they told him 'amputee jokes' like the one on the thread here where a single amputation was known as a 'papercut'. They told him jokingly that Team GB would have a good team in the Para Olympics this year with all the amputees, he repeated this on one of his shows and there was an uproar among certain types. The public gets embarrassd by the injured, they want them to be silent heroes, all saintly instead of being what they always were. We had some amputees here who had come up for the Afghan medal ceremony, their mates took them out and they all got roaring drunk. there were having wheelcahir races in the road and shouting things like 'you can't catch me you haven't got a leg to stand on'/ People were saying that it was awful doing that, why?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...sity-of-those-professing-outrage-1809954.html

Jenna, I think you are going to have to come up and meet the lads, they are nothing like what I think you imagine. With the soldiers trust is more than a word, you trust your very life to them, they trust each other implicitly, there are no secrets between them. I often find that civvies think soldiers are rough, tough, ignorant and you don't let your womenfolk near them, you probably shouldn't, not because they will ravage them but they will probably charm them into bed, no force needed, no force applied. Some may seduce your sons as well don't forget we have gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals as well in the forces. All are accepted, the only criteria is how well you do your job.

I'm not in the least tough, I don't have to be, don't need to be, I've never felt with any troops ( apart from when the Kuwaitis were here training and they spat at the females...funnily enough they seemed very accident prone though, always bumping into doors and falling downstairs, must be the British rain) that I had to be on my guard or felt unsafe. The most danger I've ever been in was probably having an overdose of tea with an Irish regiment, the stereotype was true so much tea brewed and drunk! I can honestly tell any woman who wants to join the army that she's be fine, sexual harrassment is far less than civvie street, do your job and you'll be respected. Mess up you will be ragged, that's the same for men and women. Women are proving their worth in Afghan along side the men, doing an amazing job, the men know this and with their usual straight to the point attitude anyone who harrasses you will be thumped, though the likelihood is that the female will probably have thumped them anyway. Our squaddies aren't just guys, they are THE guys! :ultracool

Tez, thank you for your kind reply and goodness I hope I do not come over as casting any aspersions on squaddies as these are just working folk like any other only in a military situation.

What I would be worried about is the frankness with which sexual conversations are broached in the workplace. I am not being critical because that is just how it is in that situation and I am happy to acknowledge that perhaps I am a little too Jane Eyre and but even outside of work I would find that kind of directness uncomfortable and would be similarly concerned no matter what the vocation.

I think the issue is that this kind of frank and open workplace sexuality (and any of its lesser variants) is indicative of the increasing exposure to, and openness towards sexuality in our societies as a whole. I think that is fair enough and perhaps not a bad thing and but the problem I think is among those who cannot differentiate between the verbal sexual freedoms they might exercise in the workplace or outside it and the physical sexual freedoms which they of course cannot exercise in the same way. This is my point that I would worry about over these two aspects becoming confused for each other perhaps especially -though not exclusively- in a more boisterous androgenic military environment. I am just glad you can report that this is not the case. I hope it continues that way.

FWIW, I work with an ex-army man though I do not ask about it, he is the most trustworthy among everyone there and but that is exactly because, as the only female on the floor, he treats me with both respect and manners and is sensitive to the boundaries.

Referencing the OP, I think empathy is vital. If you can empathise with a colleague then you will better appreciate their sensibilities and avoid unwelcome situations.

 

[granfire]

Yeah, those Army guys can turn it on and off.

I think i would have to pick my jaw off the floor a couple of times. But then again, I am not a prude and have heard most of the bad jokes.

But it's just not for everybody, that is true.

 

[punisher73]

Actually I was answering Jennas specific post, the squaddies aren't angels but to assume they will all take no for yes isn't true.
Sexual harrassment... surveys are done every couple of years, like most surveys only those who feel strongly about something will fill them in. These surveys aren't the views of the majority of women in the services who can't be bothered with filling forms in, so what does 1 in 4 women mean when only a half dozen bother ticking boxes? (You could do a survey on here asking who was right wing/left wing, you couldn't take the answer as being true for America as a whole could you?) If it were compulsory and contained the views of all females it would be a worthwhile survey. Incidentally we get surveys on everything and most chuck them in the bin, the MOD thinks if it surveys something and 'acts' on it, they appear to be doing something, like Sir Jock Stirrup saying they take it seriously etc etc etc. It's jobs for the Civil Servants, the Equal Opportunities Commision pushes these things and the MOD has to be in there looking as if they care. What it actually does is make women look like victims, that they need protecting, they do it with ethinc minorities as well. Those who feel there's a lot of sexual harrassment or who feel they have grounds for getting out of the military will fill them in so like all statisitics you will get an end result that doesn't tell all the truth. Undoubtedly there is sexual harrassment, if it gets reported it will be investigated and action taken. There's bullying as well, of course there is, there's women who do both as well as men.

There are 196,650 women in the Armed Forces, in 2007 the survey was sent to 5286 of them, less than 2000 replied. I have read that and the 2005 report.

Rape...the most common complaint is by women who go back to a soldier's room (his bedroom) and then say afterwards they are raped. First of all why would you go with a complete stranger to his room? It's not his house, there's no coffee available, no cocoa and no bikkies so yes they go back for sex. Now if they change their mind half way through? that's an issue that many have views on. I'll leave that for now.
We do have bad apples, we do have cases of rape, we even have cases of women raping women but a good many of the 'rapes' on that Google list are political allegations. I don't know if we saw the same list but a lot of that stuff wasn't even about the army or even rape, a fair few stories about the American forces as well.

This post struck me as odd. After reading it I was left with the distinct impression that if a man had made the comments downplaying the stats or saying that the rapes weren't really rapes, but after sex guilt there would be a huge outcry of sexism. I think this is a good example of the double standard that started this thread.

 

[Monroe]

I find a lot of women do take the liberty of using pet names. I find it patronizing when a man or woman uses them, especially in the work place. Maybe it was the way I was raised, but I expect children and pets to have pet names. Competent adults shouldn't be referred to this way and I expect more respect than this. I don't see why MA-caver doesn't ask the woman to not to call him by pet names. She's being unprofessional.

 

[Monroe]

This post struck me as odd. After reading it I was left with the distinct impression that if a man had made the comments downplaying the stats or saying that the rapes weren't really rapes, but after sex guilt there would be a huge outcry of sexism. I think this is a good example of the double standard that started this thread.

I take issue with her statements just as much as I would a man. I just don't want to wade through that word vomit.

 

[Tez3]

This post struck me as odd. After reading it I was left with the distinct impression that if a man had made the comments downplaying the stats or saying that the rapes weren't really rapes, but after sex guilt there would be a huge outcry of sexism. I think this is a good example of the double standard that started this thread.

Aftr sex guilt? No I didn't say that, didn't even hint it. I didn't 'downplay' the stats I was pointing out that the view put forward in the survey wasn't taken from servicewomen as a large group but from a very small group. You don't get the views of the majority by looking at the views of a few.

In the bases in Germany there are a good many single servicemen, these are often targeted by girls who wish to marry and gain a British passport. Trapping a soldier in marriage this way is actually common, has been for a long time in many other countries. I believe the American forces had the same problem at the end of the last war when British girls were seeking the bright lights in America. The MOD scrapped soldiers asking for permission to marry quite a while ago, that tended to weed out those who were marrying for the wrong reasons. When things don't go to plan, the girl will often say that sex was not consensual because of the compensation. the MOD pays a lot of compensation for a great many things. If a soldir is found guilty of rape or sexual assault he will be punished but compensation will be paid out. The chances are that in court the woman will be believed rather than the man, another sad fact I'm afraid. (In Germany there is a department which deals with just that, property damaged, livestock killed, strees and distress will all be paid for by the British Forces Germany.) Harsh, certainly but factual none the less. It's very rare for a rape to take place in a barrack block as to get the female there the soldier has to take them through the access control etc. due to soldiers being killed in Northern Ireland through girls who have gone back to the blocks with soldiers and leaving bombs there, getting into camps with unknown females is actually quite hard. The threat of suicide bombers has added to the security.
Rapes certainly do happen, perpetrated by soldiers, there's no doubt about that. I do know that all the forces police take very seriously allegations of rape, they don't assume anything but investigate thoroughly. All the proper procedures are followed, often the senior officers are women who will certainly not assume the girl is either lying or suffering 'post sex guilt'.

What you gain by marrying a British soldier as well as a fully furnished house and MOD allowances. http://www.aff.org.uk/army_family_life/foreign_commonwealh/fc_in_uk/while_you_are_in_uk.htm

After a three year investigation by the RMP British soldiers were cleared of rapes of Kenyan women, that case carried a potential compensation bill of over £30 million. Now many are saying well that's what you would expect but the RMP have investigated other rapes and they have found, charged and sent to courts martial other soldiers accused of rape. Were some of the Kenyan women raped, undoubtably but proving that after several years is going to be difficult, as well as the fact that since the Afghan war because of the climate in Kenya and the willingness of locals to act as insurgents for training there have been a lot of NATO troops from many countries including Americans who have trained in Kenya. The army takes the troops going out there seriously, we have a regiment for here out there at the moment, there are lectures on sexual 'hygiene' as AIDs is widespread and there are a lot of prostitutes who work the camps, condoms are given by the boxful to the unit medics to be given out when wanted. No, it isn't ideal, but it is practical. The thought of prostitution is unpalatable to most of us but facing facts, this has happened with armies since armies first formed. Every army has had followers, I don't know how to deal with this other than prosaically, these young men will leave Kenya, go to Afghanistan and face whatever. It's what armies do and all the moralising and breast beating in the world isn't going to change it. We have wars, we have armies and we can sanitise things as much as we like but it will still be there. We in Europe need a hot weather place to train for as long as we are in Afghan and the Kenyan government as well as the locals receive generous payments for use of their land and labour.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/15/kenya.military


3 Para in Kenya. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D.../3ParaTrainInKenyaAheadOfAfghanDeployment.htm. they lost a lot of their soldiers in the subsequent tour of Afghan. Regiments do take pride in their discipline, soldiers don't regard rape as something to be shrugged off or something to indulge in, for soldiers a willing partner is what they are looking for not a rape vistim. There are bad apples of course there are but justice for the victim is gained as many times as is possible. Even in civvy street treatment of alleged victims isn't ideal, everyone can try their best to help but there's always going to be problems, all we can do is try as hard as we can to resolve things.

This is from an American site, of course they have a bias but their premise that the military are taking to trial rape suspects without proper evidence because of political considerations cannot be dismissed lightly.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/11/military-charges-more-and-more-men-with.html

 

[Tez3]

I take issue with her statements just as much as I would a man. I just don't want to wade through that word vomit.

Then you clearly don't understand the situation. You certainly haven't understood a word I wrote so if insulting me is the best you can do, I'm sorry. As I said you can't take the view of a few to be the view of many. The survey was flawed, if I take the view of a thousand Americans should I take that as the view of millions of Americans? Punisher has read something in my posts that's not there, you seem to have followed that view.

 

[Empty Hands]

The survey was flawed, if I take the view of a thousand Americans should I take that as the view of millions of Americans?

If the sample was random? Yes. Statistics is a well-established and proven science. The uncertainty lies in obtaining a random sample, not that a random sample represents the population - we know it does and within what confidence intervals and errors.

 

[Tez3]

The survey, an explanation and why I'm not 'downplaying it.

Imagine instead of women being sexually harrassed the survey was on whether Scotland should have independence, I chose this subject because it's non contentious for non Brits. A survey is sent out asking if Scotland should have independence from the UK to ten thousand people in Scotland, the population is around 5.2 million, about half of those sent surveys are known members of the Scottish National party who's aims are Scottish independence. Six thousand people return the surveys of whom 25 % are in favour of independence, is this representative of the Scottish peoples views on this subject or should you as they plan to do have a referendum for all to have their say?

It is entirely possible to send a survey to every servicewoman and while you can't make them fill it in you would get a far better idea of their views than just sending it to a small proportion of whom an even smaller proportion reply especially when sent specifically to women who have complaints either investigated or pending. That's not downplaying a survey that's common sense. If there's a problem that needs sorting we need to see what the problem is, not just ask the victims and assume it's widespread. It may be far more widespread than we would hope, it may not but proper, honest information is needed first and foremost. Statistics are fine however we want a proper view from all service women, it's not as though there's that many.

 

[Tez3]

If the sample was random? Yes. Statistics is a well-established and proven science. The uncertainty lies in obtaining a random sample, not that a random sample represents the population - we know it does and within what confidence intervals and errors.

If you ask however all those that belong to churches and organisations that are anti abortion whether abortion should be legally available what will the view be then? Does that represent all American views? You can survey all MT posters asking if they think martial arts should be made illegal is that a representative view of Americans?