Posted on 06/08/2013 1:16:57 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members
Introduction
The Department of Defense (DoD) continues to emphasize sexual assault and sexual harassment response and prevention in the military. This survey note discusses findings from the 2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (2012 WGRA), a source of information for evaluating these programs and for assessing the gender-relations environment in the active duty force. The 2012 WGRA is the fifth active duty survey on gender-relations issues (the survey has been administered in 1995, 2002, 2006, 2010) as mandated by U.S. Code Title 10. This survey assesses the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the active duty force.
This survey note and accompanying briefing (Appendix) provide information on the prevalence rates of sexual assault, and sexual harassment and sexist behavior; personnel policies, practices, and training related to sexual assault; and an assessment of progress. The 2012 WGRA was fielded September to November 2012. Completed surveys were received from 22,792 eligible respondents. The overall weighted response rate was 24%. This survey note provides top-line results for members by gender.1 When 2012 WGRA questions are comparable to questions in the previous 2002, 2006, and 2010 surveys, an analysis of trends is also presented. If the questions do not have comparable trend comparisons, then only results from 2012 are presented. When a result is annotated as higher or lower than another result, the reader should understand that to be a statistically significant difference at the .05 level of significance.
Overview
The ability to calculate annual prevalence rates is a distinguishing feature of this survey. This report includes rates of unwanted sexual contact, unwanted gender-related behaviors (i.e., sexual harassment and sexist behavior), and gender discriminatory behaviors and sex discrimination experienced during the past 12 months.
Unwanted Sexual Contact. The 2012 WGRA survey includes a measure of unwanted sexual contact (i.e., sexual assault) originally developed for the 2006 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members.
Although this term does not appear in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it is used as an umbrella term intended to include certain acts prohibited by the UCMJ. For the purposes of the 2012 WGRA survey, the term “unwanted sexual contact” means intentional sexual contact that was against a person’s will or which occurred when the person did not or could not consent, and includes completed or attempted sexual intercourse, sodomy (oral or anal sex), penetration by an object, and the unwanted touching of genitalia and other sexually-related areas of the body. Members were asked questions related to personal experiences of unwanted sexual contact in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. Members who indicated they experienced unwanted sexual contact were then asked to provide details of the experience that had the greatest effect (i.e., where the 1 Additional details are provided in the tabulation volume (DMDC 2012a).
Members who indicated they experienced unwanted gender related behaviors were then asked to provide details of the experience that had the greatest effect (i.e., where the situation occurred and who the offenders were). Trend comparisons on unwanted gender related behaviors are presented from surveys administered in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2012.
Unwanted Gender-Related Behaviors. The 2012 WGRA includes measures of unwanted genderrelated behaviors (i.e., sexual harassment and sexist behavior) derived from the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995). To determine the extent of unwanted gender-related behaviors, members were provided a list of 12 sexual harassment behaviors and four sexist behaviors and were asked to indicate how often they had experienced the behaviors in the past 12 months. The 12 sexual harassment behaviors comprise three components of sexual harassment—crude/offensive behavior (e.g., repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that are offensive); unwanted sexual attention (e.g., unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship despite efforts to discourage it); and sexual coercion (e.g., treated badly for refusing to have sex). To be included in the calculation of the sexual harassment rate, members must have experienced at least one behavior defined as sexual harassment and indicated they considered some or all of the behaviors to be sexual harassment. Sexist behavior is defined as verbal and/or nonverbal behaviors that convey insulting, offensive, or condescending attitudes based on the gender of the respondent (Fitzgerald et al., 1988). Members who indicated they experienced unwanted gender related behaviors were then asked to provide details of the experience that had the greatest effect (i.e., where the situation occurred and who the offenders were). Trend comparisons on unwanted gender related behaviors are presented from surveys administered in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2012.
This was mentioned in an earlier discussion:
“There were over 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year. 2% (520) were sexual assaults against women. That means that the overwhelming number of sexual assaults, over 25,000 of them were male on male.”
All I can Say Is thsank GOD I’m NO longer in the U.S. Armed Forces.The Politicians are destroying the Greatest Military on Earth.
That isn’t right, there were a few more attacks on males than females overall, but the military is 80% male across the services. Most “attacks” against males were Unwanted Sexual Contact (USC), not rape of sodomy. Females are disproportion targeted, but rape and sexual assault are down and the lesser USC are up, which is a good thing in total.
“Most “attacks” against males were Unwanted Sexual Contact (USC), not rape of sodomy”
Possibly because they are male and able to fight off the UWC by the homosexual to prevent an actual rape.
Your numbers are correct when it’s about ratio of males to females.
So, the over 25,000 of what’s called “unwanted contacts” of male on male are by mostly heterosexuals “fooling around” with each other? Do you believe that since the ratio of heterosexual males to faggots is very high, are heterosexuals responsible for most of the “UWC?”
Do you think this huge number of “UWC” has nothing to do with the influx of fags and lesbos in the military? Can you guess the percentage of fag on heterosexual “UWC?”
The MSM-protected faggotry in the military will never let the public know how the horrible policy of homosexuals in the military is really working out.
I wonder if you know something most of us don’t.
Good grief. Please look at the data. Not sure where you guys are getting this supposedly 25k number of male-on-male assaults but it’s totally bogus. Of the 26,000, roughly half are male victims, and half are female victims. Of the male victims, about half have a female perpetrator and roughly half a male perpetrator.
And yes, if you actually look at the data, instead of spouting off about what you wish were true to fulfill the conclusions you’ve already decided in advance, you’d find that the male on male crimes do in fact tend to be the least severe, i.e., the butt grabs, etc. Anyone who has ever spent any time among jocks or frat boys would not be shocked.
Please see my comment above. The 25k number is total garbage.
To address what you call a a garbage number and bogus whatever, read the first paragraph from the provided URL.
“An estimated 26,000 people in the U.S. military were victims of sexual assaults in 2012, a substantial increase from an estimated 19,000 in 2010, according to an analysis of a Department of Defense (DoD) survey (sexual assaults are defined broadly from rape to “unwanted sexual touching”). In absolute numbers, men suffer from more sexual assaults, the DoD estimates, but that’s because the uniformed military has far more men; relative to their numbers, women disproportionately are targets of sexual violence.”
If you bothered to check before trying to dress a FReeper down, no pun intended, you’d have found a whole bunch of articles on the subject.
Now, you were saying:
“Of the 26,000, roughly half are male victims, and half are female victims. Of the male victims, about half have a female perpetrator and roughly half a male perpetrator.”
With the female : male ratio very low and you’re equating the number of males and females victims/perpetrators, it’s laughable and voodoo arithmetic at best! It was mentioned that 2% of the over 26,000 (say, 520) were women.
26,000 - 520 = 25,480 you may need a computer program to check this out, I don’t!
Now we arrive at the holier than thou BS YOU WERE SPOUTING OFF:
“if you actually look at the data, instead of spouting off about what you wish were true to fulfill the conclusions you’ve already decided in advance, you’d find that the male on male crimes do in fact tend to be the least severe, i.e., the butt grabs, etc. Anyone who has ever spent any time among jocks or frat boys would not be shocked.”
You should shut up and don’t put your foot in your mouth. Apparently you were “exposed” to male on male least-severe grabbing of butts and who knows what else. It looks like your public school education is showing in your challenged arithmetics and you also had no problem with what you call ..... You get the message.
Now go do your homework and don’t talk to adults like this again.
Get it?
Oh you have LINKS, then you must be correct.
Genius: You’re making assertions that are FALSE, based on FALSE assertions by journalists. Look at the ACTUAL DATA. Not some moronic link by a journalist who cannot read. Go to the DoD SAPR website. Download the DMDC survey report. It is hundreds of pages. Read the data. Yes, NYTIMES screwed up. Yes, WND screwed up (not surprising).
READ. THE. REPORT. Why do I know what’s in there? Because I’ve had to spend the last few weeks full-time reading and analyzing it for work. You’re totally out of line. Cool down, then apologize for being an insulting fool. Pull your foot out of your mouth.
Again: approximately half of the 26,000 victims are male and half are female (it’s slightly more than half male, but not by much). Of the male victims, about 40% were assaulted by a male, about 40% were assaulted by a female, and the other 20% didn’t reveal which. This is all in the DMDC report which the articles you cite are misquoting. Go to the data, not the journalist-filtered BS.
You are way out of line, and making a big fool of yourself.
Then you repeat this absolutely false line: “It was mentioned that 2% of the over 26,000 (say, 520) were women.”
READ THE DATA. The DMDC report does NOT say that 2% of the 26,000 were women. It’s garbage, as I already told you.
“Apparently you were “exposed” to male on male least-severe grabbing of butts and who knows what else. “
By the way, I’m genuinely shocked that anyone would go here. You are a vile human being if you believe it is ever appropriate to accuse a fellow person here of being the recipient of sexual assault.
“You are a vile human being if you believe it is ever appropriate to accuse a fellow person here of being the recipient of sexual assault.”
You’re getting unhinged. The operative word is “IF!” Your English comprehension needs work. I said “exposed to” NOT that you were a participant in any way.
You started this uncalled for attack......
“And yes, if you actually look at the data, instead of spouting off about what you wish were true to fulfill the conclusions you’ve already decided in advance, ....”
.....I will end it.
You carry on with your lecture....
“....you’d find that the male on male crimes do in fact tend to be the least severe, i.e., the butt grabs, etc. Anyone who has ever spent any time among jocks or frat boys would not be shocked.”
You said: “WOULD NOT BE SHOCKED”.... hold that thought, if you could.....
Now you say: “By the way, I’m genuinely shocked...” You invent something that isn’t there and get SELECTIVELY SHOCKED at it. That reminds me of the selective liberal outrage, I might add.
COMPREHEND THIS: nope, I’m NOT accusing you of being a liberal. I can’t ascertain that.
As I said, I’ll end it here. Take your best shot or SHOCK and find yourself another FReeper to label “vile,” lecture, insult and/or get SHOCKED at.
Sy
Doubling down, eh? That’s kind of funny, because this is one of those rare instances in life where things are extraordinarily cut-and-dried. It boils down to this: there is an official DoD report which is publicly available. You claim that it says X because you read some articles by journalists who claim it says X (which, as a FReeper, it’s a bit surprising that you haven’t yet realized that journalists are almost universally idiots). I claim that it says Y because I have actually read the report and it does in fact say Y. The report is available to you as well. Yet you choose to ignore it and go on a chest-beating rampage. Read the report.
Yes, I was too rude in my initial post to you, and for that I apologize. But your repeated responses have been unhinged. Seriously, read the report. It’s publicly available.
I have spent a lot of energy arguing against the gay rights lobby. When false numbers are thrown around, however, it only weakens the good arguments that are to be made, good arguments of which there are plenty.
Doubling down, eh? That’s kind of funny, because this is one of those rare instances in life where things are extraordinarily cut-and-dried. It boils down to this: there is an official DoD report which is publicly available. You claim that it says X because you read some articles by journalists who claim it says X (which, as a FReeper, it’s a bit surprising that you haven’t yet realized that journalists are almost universally idiots). I claim that it says Y because I have actually read the report and it does in fact say Y. The report is available to you as well. Yet you choose to ignore it and go on a chest-beating rampage. Read the report.
Yes, I was too rude in my initial post to you, and for that I apologize. But your repeated responses have been unhinged. Seriously, read the report. It’s publicly available.
I have spent a lot of energy arguing against the gay rights lobby. When false numbers are thrown around, however, it only weakens the good arguments that are to be made, good arguments of which there are plenty.
I thought of not replying to you as intended but I decided that since you apologized, I should acknowledge your apology, which I’ll take as an apology for calling me “vile” also. I’m writing you a different kind of reply and wasting my time, YOUR CONTINUED ATTACKS NOT WITHSTANDING!
“Doubling down, eh? That’s kind of funny, because this is one of those rare instances in life where things are extraordinarily cut-and-dried.”
You’re inviting a double down. Is this what you want?
Rare instances in life? To you, maybe. Pullleeeeze, don’t be melodramatic. This ain’t a philosophy class.
“It boils down to this: there is an official DoD report which is publicly available. You claim that it says X because you read some articles by journalists who claim it says X (which, as a FReeper, it’s a bit surprising that you haven’t yet realized that journalists are almost universally idiots). I claim that it says Y because I have actually read the report and it does in fact say Y. “
So, you do believe 0b0z0’s DoD report that’s designed to protect his destructive policy of homosexualizing the military, among other things.
Now, I’m going to do something brilliant! :-) I’m going to ask you questions that I’ll answer for expediency, about the report that got you very excited and caused you to philosify about it. -:)
READY? Here goes:
Q: any mention of homosexuals in the military in the DoD report?
A: nope
Q: any reference to the percentage of homosexual attacks of the 26,000 cases?
A: nope
Q: did any of the reported attacks mention or complain about it’s a same-sex attack?
A: nope
Q: any reasons given for the increase in sexual attacks, according to other reports, from 19,000 plus in 2010 to 26,000 plus in 2012?
A: nope. They can’t say that the repeal of DADT empowered the perverts to do what they please, covered for by the fag-in-chief as a special group.
For the sake of our country and the best military in the world, I hope I’m wrong.
About the understanding of the numbers, technically speaking, it’s my job to look at numbers, ratios, probabilities, etc., understand them and reach a logical conclusion. That’s why I’ll never agree with your close to 50/50 male/female attacks...oh pardon me, it was the powerhouse DoD holy report that would NOT mention anything about any cause and effect of homosexuality in the military. I’m positive that you’ll let me know how wrong I’m and I do hope you do.
“The report is available to you as well. Yet you choose to ignore it and go on a chest-beating rampage. Read the report.”
There you go again! Thumping my chest, huh? Where was that? You won’t find it and spare me another apology WHEN you don’t find it. I choose not to delve into made-up accusations to fill the lecture and the post.
I will not do what you are “advising” me to do. I don’t take orders from you or anyone else, get it?
I’m sure you already read the above dismantling of your vaunted DoD report WITHOUT READING IT. That’s right, I don’t need to read that typical CYA garbage that in any two-bit dictatorship always becomes CHA! (Cover His Ass)
“Yes, I was too rude in my initial post to you, and for that I apologize. But your repeated responses have been unhinged. Seriously, read the report. It’s publicly available.”
There you go again! Unhinged? Isn’t that what I called you? Please don’t use “god cop, bad cup” tactics of apology then attack in the same paragraph! Please use your own words next time, IF there’ll be a next time. It’s that pesky “IF” again! :-)
“I have spent a lot of energy arguing against the gay rights lobby.”
We all do in our little ways without boasting about it. Just didn’t want to use the pesky “thumping the chest” not to offend you and also, it’s an added benefit of practicing what I preach.
BTW, when it comes to faggotry, I never use the word “gay” as you do, I use the word “homosexual” because there’s nothing “gay” about faggotry!
” When false numbers are thrown around, however, it only weakens the good arguments that are to be made, good arguments of which there are plenty.”
ONE MORE TIME, the FALSE number is the 50/50 of your DoD report. I already pointed out to you that roughly 13,000 women attacking men or vice versa doesn’t factually compute!
Real Numbers + logic = truth!
Made-up Numbers + lies = communists’ hiding of facts + “chest thumping”
When solving The above simultaneous equations, the results would be to apply logic and sound judgement to real numbers ——> would solve real problems in real democracies! (I know, I know...representative republic)
Don’t be snookered by communist-driven propaganda from this administration. They have to protect themselves and their constituents from a “hugh and series” backlash that’s coming soon.
Lastly, your renewed “toned-down” attacks and jabs were replied to with some humor this time. If you answer, I expect 100% civility, NO LESS!
That’s the least anyone could do.
Here’s a bonus for you written on another thread by the thread starter, Hillary’sMoralVoid, it says that the survey in the new DoDB, Dept. of Defense Bible, IS BOGUS!
Why didn’t you discuss it with him/her?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3028977/posts?page=3#3
Disclaimer:DoDB, Dept. of Defense Bible, IS MINE.
You gotta ping me to comments like this! I just happened upon it in latest comments!!
I miss seeing you on FR, maybe our paths just don’t cross.
You want on my brand new ping list?
Zero’s Background - very narrow focus, just for new info or new take on old researched info.
:-)
“LOL. You are a bloviating fool. You admit that you have no idea what’s in the report or the statistical data, all of which is publicly available, and yet pretend you have the intellectual high ground. Not going to waste time arguing with a hamster like you. For the record, all your claims are wrong. Go read the survey data yourself. “
Nope, I won’t read your recommended crap. Putting lipstick on a pig by cleansing perverts’ damage by omission is not my cup of tea. Save your bad breath.
“If you think the survey is garbage—ok, that’s fine—but if that’s the case, then a rational person wouldn’t use the 26k number either, which is from the survey. Nor would he pretend that the 19k to 26k means anything, since it is all within the statistical noise of the surveys. Of course, if you weren’t a prick absolutely dripping with pride, and actually looked at the survey data, you would realize that a larger category of sexual assaults was counted in the most recent survey relative to the earlier ones, which also removes the significance of the 19-26k change. But I’m sure you already knew that, since your bright intelligence doesn’t require you to actually look at the readily available unfiltered survey data (which shows that you’re 100% wrong of course...). You should leave analysis to minds better than yours. “
No, because some fags “fudged” the numbers to wipe out the “rise” in sexual assaults from 19k in ‘10 to 26k in ‘12 to give homos the cover they need and propagate the lie that the “in”flux of homos in the military is fine and dandy. Nothing wrong there, no siree! The DoD survey must be 0h0m0’s serviette, n’est-ce pas? He wouldn’t approve it, otherwise arses would roll. He uses documents like this for his yearly asswiping.
Dripping pride? Sure, any amount of pride seems too much for anyone who has none or a false one. A weasel has more pride than you ever could muster.
As to calling me a p*, it only highlights your “shortcomings” and/or lacking some essentials. A “little soprano” voice in your “tiny head” tells you to say it, right?
I do believe that when you use words like this you should go and wash your arse with soap and water ‘cause this is the only outlet for gutter squirts like this.
See, I have to repeat one of your gems written above because it deserves using your own words, an “intellectual high ground” analysis. I also didn’t want to cut&paste not to ruin your Pulitzer gibberish.
“Nor would he [the rational person] pretend that the 19k to 26k means anything, since it is all within the statistical noise of the surveys.”
You call 7,000 over 19,000 “statistical noise?” Are you seriously calling “fudging” almost 35% of an increase “statistical noise?” Here’s a free lesson in arithmetics, it’s NOT a “statistical noise,” it’s a STATISTICAL SONIC BOOM, dumbo!
You obviously will do anything to avoid talking about the damning truth in numbers. I wonder why.
You never answered my challenge to prove me wrong, dear survey reader. When it came to my Q&A YOU DUCKED because the “statistical noise” deafened you. In fact, your silence is quite deafening about this section below from #15. For the record and your embarrassment, remove your eye blinders and unplug your ears to hear the “noise” of truth. Here it is again:
***Q: any mention of homosexuals in the military in the DoD report?
A: nope
Q: any reference to the percentage of homosexual attacks of the 26,000 cases?
A: nope
Q: did any of the reported attacks mention or complain about it’s a same-sex attack?
A: nope
Q: any reasons given for the increase in sexual attacks, according to other reports, from 19,000 plus in 2010 to 26,000 plus in 2012?
A: nope. They can’t say that the repeal of DADT empowered the perverts to do what they please, covered for by the fag-in-chief as a special group.
For the sake of our country and the best military in the world, I hope I’m wrong.***
You won’t answer because you can’t! You want to close the subject of homos’ damage in the military by DUCKING!
“I sincerely hope you’re no older than about 14, which would be the only excuse for your celebrated ignorance.”
Yes, I’m 14 and according to your very capable arithmetics, I signed in FR at the mature age of 5. That proves to you, senile old hag, no rhyme intended, how extraordinary my intellect is!
Now we get to the REAL hocus-pocus, your award winning bogus opus! Let’s bring the violin.
“A long time ago, FR had some rational people. They’ve all left or been kicked out. All I’ve seen for the last couple years has been imbecility like yours. People who decide in advance what they want to be true, and twist everything to fit their narrative. People like you have destroyed FR, and make us all look like idiots. This will be my last post on this site, since your idiocy is like a stench to me, and a perfect exclamation point to the long train of stupidities that have been uttered here in the last few years. “
So, you’re pulling a two-year rank on me? You can’t pull rank when you’re in the gutter. But how would you know that after spending a long time there? You’re mad at me because I won’t compromise with the likes of you. You started all this out of the blue and delivered an apology that’s no apology, followed by insults and jabs.
You dare say “uttered here” excluding yourself after your gutter language replacing your deafening silence on one of the most destructive groups in the country? Here’s a message for you and your ilk: Conservatives will not submit to the termites’ baby steps to total moral bankruptcy.
Stench, you say? Please keep your tarp underwear on when leaving the building as per the health department sign at the door.
You, Senile Old Bag, no acronym intended, should make good on your promise and go to DU. This grand move will improve both sites. FR will get rid of your “drag” and the communist site of your choice will go deeper in the sewer, below the gutter, that is. You can come out of the attic there and you’ll attain celebrity status.
Don’t let the door hit ya where......Nah, couldn’t go there without a HAZMAT suit. And BTW, take your other older screen name with you, it’s frowned upon in FR.
Now, your Oscar performance is ending, the camera fading away, it’s raining and you’re walking into the rainbow.
Quite fitting. don’t you think this is more honorable than suicide by zot?
Now, GIT, termite!
Sy
Placemark
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.