Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:30 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
<history professor's hat firmly on>
In Viking law, you could get outlawed for tugging on a woman's sleeve.
And outlawing was a big fucking deal back then - it meant, literally, that the laws didn't apply to you any more. You were, in fact, outside of the laws. Including any law that said things like "If you steal from..." or "If you take an axe to...". You basically became a meat-based free-for-all.

So it seems like a disproportionate punishment for the "crime", right ? On the surface, yes. But while it isn't explicitly stated in the laws or lore, the consensus is that the Vikings reasoned that if a given woman was so utterly pissed off at you that merely tugging at her sleeve was abhorrent enough to her that she'd take you to court and condemn you to death in so many words ; well, maybe you did some shit to her before that. It simply was easier for her to prove that you'd tugged at her sleeve (in public, with witnesses), and admitting to having her sleeve tugged at was less damaging to her reputation and future than whatever shit you really pulled that got her worked up.
So touching a woman's wrist should be severely punished, because that means you might have done something much worse but the woman can't prove it. Is that what you meant?

That is a rather unique point of view.

Regards,
Shodan, not a Viking, fortunately
  #52  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:33 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Great post. Thanks.

OK, that's twice in a week from you "he's right !" people. What the hell ? Where's the catch ? What's even going on ? I need you fucks to know I'm on to you lot.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 05-03-2019 at 04:33 PM.
  #53  
Old 05-03-2019, 04:46 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So touching a woman's wrist should be severely punished, because that means you might have done something much worse but the woman can't prove it. Is that what you meant?

That is a rather unique point of view.

Regards,
Shodan, not a Viking, fortunately

Quote my "should", please ?
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #54  
Old 05-03-2019, 08:33 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,404
It's important to frame the problem correctly. The UPI coverage compared to more than just one previous survey.
Quote:
The report, released Thursday, found that 20,500 service members, representing about 13,000 women and 7,500 men, experienced sexual assault in 2018, up from about 14,900 in the last biennial survey in 2016.
Quote:
The statistics are closer to 2014, when 20,300 people experienced sexual assault, though the number of women sexually assaulted has significantly increased to 6.2 percent compared to 4.9 percent in 2014.
Quote:
Although sexual assaults increased in 2018, they remained below estimates of 34,200 in 2006 and 26,000 in 2012.
The general trend had been down before a significant bump back closer to where we'd been before. Reporting rates stayed up, and are still about quadruple what they were in 2005 when DOD starting making a concerted effort. That's an area where we didn't lose ground. Acting Secretary Shanahan described the problem as "persistent." Rear Adm Ann Burkhart, director of DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office referred to the change as a "bounceback." To explain what happened we're looking for areas where things changed or efforts weren't persistent.

We started integrating the combat arms. That's one pretty big change. Ground forces make up the majority of US military personnel; they are personnel heavy because of the nature of their missions. The Army alone is a majority of the US military. Both the Marine Corps and Army adapted a leader first approach to integration of the combat arms to try and minimize issues. The Army only retracted combat exclusion in December of 2015 to let leaders start filtering in. The first female junior enlisted graduated from One Station Unit Training as infantry in May 2017. In the 2016 survey, the young, female, junior enlisted troops that showed an increase in sexual assault rates were still excluded from combat arms units. That's a big change.

Those combat arms units are not places where "don't touch people without permission" makes sense. As a retired Armor officer contact is both an incidental condition of being crammed so closely together and something that does need to happen without always asking first. "It's okay to firmly grab PFC Jones' upper thigh or butt without asking when we stack up for room clearing but not when we're drunk off duty in the billets" isn't an insurmountable obstacle. It's a challenge that doesn't exist in civilian workforces, though. It doesn't get fixed with unfeasible notions like not touching without permission. We're seeing more of those types of challenges in 2018 than we were in 2016 due to integration. That change needs to be addressed.*

Turnover is high in the military. Leaders in the active duty force covered by this survey move often. For Army officers a PCS (permanent change of station) is the norm every two years. For non-commissioned officers it's every three years. Climates of units are in constant flux as leaders move in and out. The junior enlisted that are the primary victims and perpetrators make up the majority of the Army. Many of them only do an initial term of service before leaving. Even those that reenlist age out of the areas of most concern in the latest survey. That argues pretty strongly for fixes to be persistent to be effective.

In late summer of 2013 there was a major one time push in the Army on top of all the recurring stuff related to the Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention program. Part of the requirements was commanders sitting down with their entire units in small groups. That was called leader engagement training. There was some supporting videos to choose from but no prepackaged Powerpoint presentation. The intent was discussion and a chance to get that small group face time between leaders and led. It seemed to work based on the numbers that followed. Five years later it's not even in the memory of many troops. The junior enlisted who went through that process aren't part of the problem demographic anymore. They've left the service or been promoted and aged out of the problem demographics. It was a short term but not a persistent fix.

* As a field grade officer I was part of a survey about how to integrate my branch when DA was looking at integration of women. I was seriously concerned about how to manage this transition phase in an environment where such close contact is the norm. I'm glad we went with the leader first approach to try and mitigate the risks. I had a real fear things would be even worse than this survey shows.
  #55  
Old 05-03-2019, 09:42 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Most likely it just simply was reported more often. There is no reason to believe that military men were less prone to assaulting women in the past.
Or men against men, or women against women for that matter.

It's being reported and that's why it's "increasing."
  #56  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:38 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Quote my "should", please ?
What was your point, if any, and what did it have to do with the OP?

Regards,
Shodan
  #57  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:49 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There is no reason to believe that military men were less prone to assaulting women in the past.
I didn't address this till I had a chance to read all the way through the latest report. There's some real differences that don't fit common themes for the US civilian population.

The large number of males assaulted is pretty easy to explain because of the strong gender bias in the group. For offenders though there's a real difference. "Military women indicated that offenders were most often military men whom they considered to be a friend or acquaintance, acting alone." That's what we'd generally expect to see in the civilian population. Male service members though reported something that might surprise most people - "just over half of men indicated their offender was male, 30 percent indicated their offender was female, and 13 percent indicated their offenders were a mix of men and women acting together."

Female sex offenders in the military are part of the problem in a way that they just aren't in civilian life. That part didn't change so it's not relevant to answer the question from the OP or your assertion. It's an important part of the military trying to address the broader issue though.
  #58  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:18 AM
Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
I didn't address this till I had a chance to read all the way through the latest report. There's some real differences that don't fit common themes for the US civilian population.

The large number of males assaulted is pretty easy to explain because of the strong gender bias in the group. For offenders though there's a real difference. "Military women indicated that offenders were most often military men whom they considered to be a friend or acquaintance, acting alone." That's what we'd generally expect to see in the civilian population. Male service members though reported something that might surprise most people - "just over half of men indicated their offender was male, 30 percent indicated their offender was female, and 13 percent indicated their offenders were a mix of men and women acting together."

Female sex offenders in the military are part of the problem in a way that they just aren't in civilian life. That part didn't change so it's not relevant to answer the question from the OP or your assertion. It's an important part of the military trying to address the broader issue though.
No one is forgetting that female offenders exist (maybe in this post), but overall, we are aware there is an issue - similar to male victim-survivors. We know they are very under-reported.

One interesting note is that evening the cases of male victim-survivors, the offender is often still male. Many incidences of male sexual assault fall into the "hazing" category (including one unit that had a ritual where new members ran naked in the woods and the rest of the unit had to "hunt" them. The "hunt" was over when the new members were found, and bitten hard enough to draw blood).

I do take issue with one point made way back at the start - the "attractiveness" of the victim-survivor does not play a role. Sexual assault is not about attraction. If I clobbered you with a spade, I would not call it gardening. Sexual assault is about power and violence.

Wrist touch - Finally - I HATE it when people say "Well, why didn't she just confront him herself first?" That seems easy, until you are victimized. It can be very, very hard to speak up for yourself. If it had been a non-issue, then HR would have not responded the way they did.

This was not incidental "I am jumping into this shell scrape because we are under fire so sorry because I am rolling my entire body over you"...this could be seen as an intimate touch, and a way to physically assert yourself. He would not have done this to another man (although you can try to convince me), so it becomes about gender or dominance.

Either way, out of line in a professional environment, period.
  #59  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:30 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
The double dilemma is this: If they don't go to HR there isn't any record, so there must not be any real problem, is there? If they go to HR, then it shows that they are too weak for military life.
  #60  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:04 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The double dilemma is this: If they don't go to HR there isn't any record, so there must not be any real problem, is there? If they go to HR, then it shows that they are too weak for military life.
That's some catch, that catch 22.
  #61  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:37 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,819
A similar jump in years past:

“The Pentagon estimated that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, rising from 19,000 in 2010”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexu...tates_military
  #62  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:58 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Female sex offenders in the military are part of the problem in a way that they just aren't in civilian life.
Are they? I realize that according to statistics I've been assaulted more often than most other women, but those assaults include women acting alone and women acting with men as well as men acting alone or in an all-male group. Men acting alone are still the most common, mind you.

The ratios may be different, but when one of the issues is low reporting and differences in how attacks are classified and/or counted in different contexts, it's difficult to know. We need better data.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 05-11-2019 at 02:59 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017