The Hipocritcal Standard of Harassment

[punisher73]

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.

Sorry, if that was not the intent. I read this statement and made that inference since every other time I have heard someone make this statement it is followed by the reasoning that they only went for sex and no other reason so therefore it was after sex guilt because they did sleep with the guy.

 

[Tez3]

Sorry, if that was not the intent. I read this statement and made that inference since every other time I have heard someone make this statement it is followed by the reasoning that they only went for sex and no other reason so therefore it was after sex guilt because they did sleep with the guy.

I daresay there are girls who do feel guilty or get found out by boyfriend/husband/family so claim rape though tbh it would be hard to claim that most times as all concerned know so it's rare I've found that rape is claimed in these cases. The circumstances are that going to a soldiers accomodation block you can't say you were going for coffee or somewhere to sleep for the night as you missed the bus, females aren't allowed in male accomodation, you have to be 'smugggled in'. I do find it strange sometimes that a female would go to the lengths of undressing and getting into bed with a man only for them to say no but each to their own, I can imagine though plenty of times when sex seemed attractive but something put them off at the last moment, some men's idea of foreplay ie shouting 'brace yourself Sheila' isn't to everyone's taste and you wouldn't know until the last minute. Most men I've heard talking about this say it's would be frustrating but they'd have to go along with want the women wanted because they aren't into forcing the however frustrating it would be. Sensibly they also think they could be prosecuted so most times the brain takes over. Of course there will always be exceptions and those execptions if reported will be treated as rape.

It's not just abroad that girls target servicemen, we get it a lot here, if you have a poor or none existant homelife marriage to a squaddie looks attractive, it gives you a home, a man and possibly a nice tour in Cyprus, the squaddies are young, many have bad backgrounds themselves, the idea of a family and living out of the block is also attractive. Many young wives find themselves however stuck in a married quarter with young children while their husband is on deployment. It's hard so not all marriages survive.

British and American husbands are popular with many who have left their own countries for whatever reasons, I believe the American Forces do warn their troops of this including about British girls I'll add. Like the people who hide in the wagons coming across the Channel, some die due to lack of oxygen or because they are in the refrigerated wagons, many are desperate to get into the UK, if a threatened rape case can blackmail someone into marriage or they can get enough money from compensation to enter or hoping the authorities will allow them in, they will try it. The internet is full of sites that show foreign women looking for British and American husbands.



That women are raped there is no doubt, we all hope that every allegation is treated seriously and investigated properly with integrity. However after investigation we also have to accept that some allegations are false, we can't go from the awful position of the past where 'women were asking for it', 'you can't rape a prostitute' and 'well he couldn't stop', to a situation where all men are rapists. Each case must be taken on it's merits and proof, open minds must be kept, if we do our best hopefully justice will be done, nothings perfect but as long as we keep trying to do the right thing I have hopes that we do the best for victims.

Coming out of the army doesn't protect you either if you are guilty. This ex soldier was tried by court martial and sent down twenty four years after he committed his crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-15680757

 

[Steve]

A lot is being made about sample size. According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.

The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results. If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error. Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.

 

[Tez3]

A lot is being made about sample size. According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.

The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results. If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error. Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.

But if you only sent the survey to people who had a vested interest in the results, what would that say then? If you send the survey on sexual harrassment to those who have a complaint of sexual harrassment made already are you going to get a result that expresses the feelings of those not asked?

If it were sent to a totally random number of servicewomen in all three services, I can see that it would come back as being representative but to load it by sending it to those who have complaints or strong feelings and a few others doesn't give a true picture.

 

[ballen0351]

I know nothing of stats I do have a question if you or anyone else might know. When determining a sample size is there a min % of people you need to ask to make the results accurate? For instance in tez post how many females must be asked to make the results correct. And how do you count the people that don't respond. For someone to take the time to respond they would have a vested interest in the topic so that would change the results. You would need to count the nonresponce as what? For example if they did a survey on coffee drinkers I wouldn't answer because I don't drink coffee. So if I didn't answer would that count on the don't drink coffee side? You would prob get a better responce from the pro coffee crowd which would make your stats wrong. Or maybe im thinking to much into this and. Should get back to work. Stats are always kind of interesting to me. Especially around election time.

A lot is being made about sample size. According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.

The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results. If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error. Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.

 

[granfire]

A lot is being made about sample size. According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.

The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results. If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error. Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.

Ah, but only if the 10.000 people are polled as actual representation of the population and if those 50% don't have a special interest.
#1 lesson in statistics: never trust one you have not fudged, erm, compiled yourself.

I mean I am guilty...I always complain about never being asked, but I never have the time wen they call me to ask....


Also, the way the questions are worded also has a lot to do with the resulting answers.

While the numbers don't lie, they don't tell the whole truth either.

 

[Steve]

Well, first, I hope it's clear that I'm not an expert. But I'm also not completely ignorant on the matter... so, I'll tell you what I believe to be true, and if someone knows better, I'll welcome correction. I'm also going to keep it very simple.

Essentially, there are several factors that go into determining how confident you can be in a survey. Sample size (ie, 10,000 surveys sent), population size (10k out of a total of 250k), acceptable margin of error (+/- 2% or 5% or what have you), response percentage (in this case about 50%) and confidence in the results (if we repeat this survey to another sample group, we're 99% confident the results will be within the margin of error). And given any four of these, you can calculate the fifth.

I even found a quick calculator: http://relevantinsights.com/research-tools

The over arching point is that you can skew a survey by rigging the sample, but there's nothing to suggest that this was done in these surveys. If they were sent out to a random sample, the margin of error on the results is likely VERY low, and the results of the surveys is very likely to be pretty darned accurate.

And provided that the survey was done correctly, the rest is spin. "Well, the sample was too small. The women who responded had an agenda. My dog was at the vet. Jupiter was out of phase with Venus. Men are from Mars."

 

[Tez3]

I know nothing of stats I do have a question if you or anyone else might know. When determining a sample size is there a min % of people you need to ask to make the results accurate? For instance in tez post how many females must be asked to make the results correct. And how do you count the people that don't respond. For someone to take the time to respond they would have a vested interest in the topic so that would change the results. You would need to count the nonresponce as what? For example if they did a survey on coffee drinkers I wouldn't answer because I don't drink coffee. So if I didn't answer would that count on the don't drink coffee side? You would prob get a better responce from the pro coffee crowd which would make your stats wrong. Or maybe im thinking to much into this and. Should get back to work. Stats are always kind of interesting to me. Especially around election time.

I think this is a very important question especially when it concerns things like sexual harassment, racial harassment etc. Based on these statistics companies make policies about how these things are perceived and treated, laws are made, If the information is weighted in favour of one side of the argument you will end up with unfair policies and more than likely unfair dismissals affecting peoples lives.

These particular surveys, the last being in 2009, point to there being a 'huge' problem in sexual harassment among the forces, so the powers that be demand 'action', that action is an absolute zero tolerance of anything that might even conceivably regarded as sexual harassment such as calling some one 'dear', people are disciplined, fined, given custodial sentences ( yes in the forces you can 14 days in the cells for such things), you create an atmosphere of terror basically, where everyone is scared to say anything, there's suspicion of women, suspicion of each other, lack of morale and people basically wanting to leave because these draconian measures. It's a situation that does no one any good.

There's a school of thought, popular here during the Labour parties stint in power that we have to understand that all men are potential rapists and all women are victims, I believe there was a period where the saying was that every woman had been raped at some point in her life. They said that every time a woman had sex with her partner and didn't really want to but said yes anyway that was rape. It became quite strident and many men felt under attack. Things have quietened down a little from that thank goodness but there still is that reaction now which has boomeranged from people not believing women to believing women are victims.

Something we are struggling with is the current problem of binge drinking, women who drink so much they can't stand, who pass out and find they have had sex with a man they don't know. This is causing a lot of debate, did she consent and doesn't remember, or was she taken advantage of while passed out cold? Is she responsible for whatever happened because she drank herself senseless? It is against the law to have sex with someone who is incapacitated by drink, however it's hard to prove unless the accused is sober and there was a witness or solid proof. It's one of the problems we have to solve, it can be that drunken female who will allege rape by a soldier. She's got paralytic, agreed to come back to his block, passed out on his bed and woke up to find she'd had sex. Sometime later she's told her friend or even read it somewhere, could be days later, weeks even and has been told that she was raped so it gets reported to the police. Now what to do? Military camps are in the middle of nowhere, there's very little on them to amuse civvies in an evening, there used to be NAAFIs but no more, they closed them as the squaddies go out now they have money. There's no reason for girls to be there unless they want to be, you can't drag a female in pass the security on the gate, it's rare these days for soldiers to guard their own camps so mates won't be there. Taxi's aren't allowed on camp, the guards can see who's in cars, soldiers often have to sign on at gate. Mostly they get dropped off by taxi at camp gates and walk in because they are as drunk as skunks, members of the opposite sex can be allowed in the UK accomodation, the army provide double beds in the new single man accomodation. So has that girl been raped? How do the police investigate when both parties were drunk and can't remember in the morning never mind weeks later. What ever though this rape allegation is logged and goes onto the statistics, what does that say? That we have a problem with rape or a problem with people drinking or both?
All allegations of sexual harassment are logged and they too become statistics, does that mean there's a problem of harassment in that organisation if it's then found there's no case to answer?
Many police forces have a similiar problem when allegations are made against them people look at that not how many times the allegations have been unfounded.

 

[Tez3]

Well, first, I hope it's clear that I'm not an expert. But I'm also not completely ignorant on the matter... so, I'll tell you what I believe to be true, and if someone knows better, I'll welcome correction. I'm also going to keep it very simple.

Essentially, there are several factors that go into determining how confident you can be in a survey. Sample size (ie, 10,000 surveys sent), population size (10k out of a total of 250k), acceptable margin of error (+/- 2% or 5% or what have you), response percentage (in this case about 50%) and confidence in the results (if we repeat this survey to another sample group, we're 99% confident the results will be within the margin of error). And given any four of these, you can calculate the fifth.

I even found a quick calculator: http://relevantinsights.com/research-tools

The over arching point is that you can skew a survey by rigging the sample, but there's nothing to suggest that this was done in these surveys. If they were sent out to a random sample, the margin of error on the results is likely VERY low, and the results of the surveys is very likely to be pretty darned accurate.

And provided that the survey was done correctly, the rest is spin. "Well, the sample was too small. The women who responded had an agenda. My dog was at the vet. Jupiter was out of phase with Venus. Men are from Mars."

and you know that how? Have you read the surveys? I have, all of them when they came out. It was also sent to a few servicemen btw not just women. In the Mail it says 1 in 7 women claimed harassment, as opposed the Guardians 1 in 4. Both newspapers claim that it was sent out to nearly 9000 service women, neither said how many replied or how many men it went to. This is also several years old, 8 years in fact.

 

[Blade96]

i agree, nothin wrong with sweety. when i spent time at a hotel the bartender called everyone 'my sweet' I thought it was very cute.

 

[Cryozombie]

when i spent time at a hotel the bartender called everyone 'my sweet' I thought it was very cute.

Yeah... now that you mention it, my bartender hugs me goodbye every Wednesday.

But, It's only sexual harassment if I don't like it.

 

[Steve]

i agree, nothin wrong with sweety. when i spent time at a hotel the bartender called everyone 'my sweet' I thought it was very cute.

It's not sexual harassment until you ask him to stop and he doesn't AND it creates in environment that is hostile, the definition of which was posted here in this thread back on page one.

In other words, chances are good that if you asked him to stop and he doesn't, it's still not harassment. It's much more likely that it would be workplace bullying, which is very common and a completely different thing. And also not against the law.

From a manager's perspective, managing workplace bullying is the lion's share of what you'll be doing in these situations. Just as common is a manager who is a bully. Setting people up to fail, embarrassing them in front of their peers, setting unrealistic deadlines so that you can document poor performance, assigning work for which a person is not trained, assigning work well above or below a person's pay grade, demeaning nicknames... all symptoms of workplace bullying.

I'm only pointing this out because when we talk about sexual harassment, it's important that we all stay on the same page regarding what IS harassment and what isn't.





Sent using Tapatalk. Please ignore typos.