A woman in the US military is more likely to be raped or sexually harassed by a fellow serviceman, CO, or even a military doctor than she is to be killed in Iraq…
…reported Keith Olbermann tonight.
Horrifying, and backed up by Jane Harman in The LA Times.
I certainly don’t want to minimize this problem, but whenever I see one of these things I immediately think of my college Economics Statistics course optional textbook, “How To Lie With Statistics.” Given the nature of jobs available to women in the military, their death rate even in Iraq is extremely low, so the comparison is rather meaningless. In fact I would be surprised if the likelihood of rape or sexual harassment is not far higher than probablility of a male serviceman being killed in Iraq.
I think the point is that a soldier expects she might die in battle, and – if she is raped – to be raped by enemy combatants, not by her fellow comrades in arms.
It’s the betrayal – I’d even say treason – of being treated this way by a soldier on the same side as you that’s the issue, no? Not the #s per se.
Of course the main point is that it’s terrible that the service women are raped by their fellow service men at all, and doubly terrible that the military doesn’t even address it with the severity which the general criminal justice system does.
However, caprice makes a good point. In the media and elsewhere, statistics are routinely mis-used, or used meaninglessly, to try to make a point. For those of us who have some grasp on statistics, seeing them mis-used to support a point actually undermines the point the author is trying to make, because it introduces a note of skepticism in our minds where there needn’t have been any.
The situation is bad enough to stand on its own, or to be bolstered by statistics applied correctly.
Respectfully, at first glance, this accusation appears warped. More data is needed to make a correct evaluation. First as former military, and as a statistics professor teaching advanced stats at the post graduate level, there are a few questions that need to be clarified about the data and the declaration by KO et.al.
1. Is the probability of rape in the military higher or lower than in the general population? If it is “lower” then a woman in the military is “safer” in the military environment than walking the streets as a civilian. This difference would indicate that military males are less inclined to rape than civilians and the military environment is more friendly and safer to women than civilian life.
2. Is the probability of rape in the civilian population “in general” more or less likely than death by combat action in Iraq? If rape is more likely, then the entire accusation against the US military is entirely specious.
3. When investigating who perpetrates rape in the general civilian population, what is the statistic that someone a woman knows or associates with is the perpetrator of rape? If that statistic is higher than in the military, again it would show that women soldiers are safer associating with male soldiers than associating with civilian males as a civilian woman. Again the accusation against the US military would evaporate. (My guess, it is the same. Hence, the entire accusation by KO has no merit.
As to Caprice’s point, with the exception of allowing women to serve as flight officers (helicopters) women in the US military are not allowed to serve in combat units. Needless to say then “all deaths in combat units” are male. Combat units are the spear point. A soldier in a combat unit (infantry, armor, etc.) does suffer from higher probabilities to encounter death. Male death in a war zone are always higher.
Women in the military serve in support units. Traditionally support units encounter significantly lower unit deaths. In fact, most stats indicate “death by accident” exceed “death by combat” for “both genders” if the soldier is in a support unit. Death “by combat” in a support unit does occur but it is extremely rare. If rape has a probability higher than “death by accident” in the military (and it probably does because death by accident is extremely rare) then KO can say that rape is more probable in Iraq for a woman because women are not exposed to combat…. and death by accident is so extremely rare that statistically rape probably is more likely than “death by accident” in Iraq, the overwhelming cause of death in units where women serve.
But such an accusation is senselessly derogatory against the US military because it does not consider the over all reality of the human condition. That is agenda driven political bias that simply projects a “lie by statistics”.
As to Grace Annam’s point, respectfully dear, US military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, the United States Code of Military Justice. This code is “far more strict” on perpetrators of rape than civilian code because soldiers are expected to retain military discipline. Sentencing is far tougher too. There is no probation, no suspended sentence for rapists in the US military like there is in civilian courts. They serve significantly longer sentences as well (and I mean 20-25-30 years) at hard labor for rape if convicted.
We have an expert here on the boards that probably has these stats at her fingertips, our lovely Nettie (Dr. Lynette N). I am sure the stats will indicate how truly vacuous KO et.al. accusations are.
🙂
Catrina
Oops that is the Uniform Code of Military Justice… sorry
how would people feel if male soldiers were being raped by other male soldiers?
i don’t give a crap about the rates in civilian life. the problem is that our soldiers are being raped by fellow soldiers. & that is FUCKED UP.
for real, helen.
i find the focus of the commentors on disbelieving this story to be really disheartening.
Catrina says: “As to Caprice’s point, with the exception of allowing women to serve as flight officers (helicopters) women in the US military are not allowed to serve in combat units.”
This is technically true, but not actually true. Yes, women are not assigned to units whose primary purpose is combat. They are, however, assigned to units which almost certainly see combat, like field intelligence and reconnaissance units. Some of our women in uniform get sniped and pinned down, and return fire, and kill and die. That’s combat, and it’s shameful that our government hides behind careful semantic phrasing to pretend that some women aren’t assigned directly into it.
You can argue whether women should or shouldn’t be exposed to combat, but our government puts them there and then tries to pretend that they aren’t there. That hypocrisy, no matter how you slice it. Just imagine what it does to the psyche of the women who have volunteered for such duties, and bled in the performance of them, to have their service publicly disavowed.
Catrina says, “As to Grace Annam’s point, respectfully dear, US military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, the [Uniform] Code of Military Justice. This code is “far more strict†on perpetrators of rape…”
One would certainly think so, but that apparently turns out not to be the case. I refer you to Jane Harman’s article, referenced at the top by Helen, which makes better use of statistics than the headline did.
Red says, “I find the focus of the commentators on disbelieving this story to be really disheartening.”
I’m sorry, Red. I hate to be disheartening. If this story is true, then I want the media to make the presentation they can, and they’ve screwed that up by going for a sensationalist headline which they don’t properly back up. To someone who knows a bit about how to use statistics, this undermines their story just as effectively as an obvious lie would.
Helen wrote, “how would people feel if male soldiers were being raped by other male soldiers? i don’t give a crap about the rates in civilian life. the problem is that our soldiers are being raped by fellow soldiers. & that is FUCKED UP.”
You said it. Our military is training and indoctrinating young women to trust the chain of command and their fellow soldiers. Then some of those same soldiers commit rapes, and the military fails to provide even as much justice as a civilian rape victim gets (and we already know that THAT system doesn’t work as well as we would like).
Yes, it’s fucked up. But is it worthy of separate, special attention? ANY rape is unacceptable, and rapes that happen ANYwhere should be eliminated.
But is the military a hotbed for rape? Or perhaps is rape worse when in occurs among servicemen and women? If so, it’s worth additional investigation.
If, on the other hand, rape is actually lower in the military than elsewhere, then our energy would be better spent focusing on areas where rape is more problematic.
Rape is like a huge forest fire. If we try to put out every little blaze, we’ve spread too thin and allowed the problem to continue. It’s best to focus on critical areas first — the most dangerous areas that can still be controlled.
This discussion AROUND the topic of rape doesn’t have to detract from the issue itself. In fact, I think it helps us to keep our focus where it is most needed or most effective.
Grace, what I find disheartening is the immediate assumption that it *must not* be true. That kind of disbelief and immediate suspicion is what rape and sexual assault survivors every day.
In my experience, folks who experience sexual crimes face a burden of proof much higher than folks who experience non-sexual ones. Would the response of posters here be as disbelieving if these statistics were about folks getting beaten up? I suspect it wouldn’t be. So for folks to *automatically* assume that these statistics have been manipulated…bums me out.
And you know, the point is still that women in the military have to face a fear that their male counterparts don’t — the threat of sexual violence from their fellows, from the folks who are supposed to be on their side, having their back. It is seriously disgusting and twisted that women are facing this, and that’s what we should be focusing on.
I have no reason at all to think the statistics are untrue. I’m sorry if I gave the impression I thought this. The book I cited, “How To Lie With Statistics,” was not about statistical manipulation. It was about how to spot the mis-use of (presumably) valid statistics. This article is an example of this.
This isn’t a case of manipulation of statistics, it’s a case of bad writing. As Grace says, the use of a meaningless statistical comparison undermines the point the author is trying to make.
Aye. It is a dodgy statistic, but beyond that, the media isn’t historically very responsible with statistics.
Actually, I’m assuming it is true. I’m just not sure it’s a meaningful statistic.
Well there certainly has been some animated posting here. Can all of you bear with me? I am on deadline for a paper that has to be done by Sunday. This thread is an extremely important one on an extremely important issue. Hence, I would like the opportunity to provide further comments. Your patience will be appreciated.
In brief however, can those that consider this author’s humble remarks ponder.
A. The essential point at issue concerns if the US military condones rape or is lax in enforcing rape laws. This contention is based on a statistical argument. It appears only reasonable to evaluate that contention through the use of statistics (alternate and otherwise) and determine whether that contention has validity based on a thorough evaluation of the statistics used to project such a contention.
B. Questioning the contention that is based on statistics is not in the least like questioning rape victims or an attempt to discredit rape victims. In stats all hypothesis need to undergo what is called the “null hypothesis”. Hence, my first posting was a call to evaluate the stats that underly this contention about the US military with other known statistics to determine what is called “significance” of the accusation.
These comments do not imply that rape, any rape perpetrated against any woman, anywhere is not significant. Significance in this case means “does the data that is the basis for this accusation against the US military have statistical merit.”
The US military is a cultural institution spawned by the culture that produces it. Rape, a heinous violent and deeply psychotic crime against women, exists in that culture (and with regret all other cultures). It appears only reasonable to evaluate how the US military is dealing with this scourge against women by comparing its enforcement to the culture that it manifests from. Such an investigation does not decry or in any way not empathize with any woman raped in the military or anywhere else.
A comparison of data has not yet been done.
C. Siting policies, i.e. no females in combat units, is a component of the critique of the contention to determine whether the contention is valid. Such a policy skews certain data and can be easily misunderstood. It does NOT invalidate the great sacrifices our female soldiers are making. It especially does not critique any soldier, male or female, that has undergone the indignity of being shot at. There is no correlation here with that heart felt empathy that is of a deep personal nature, and the pursuit to establish a foundation of solid facts where statistical analysis can illumine if the accusation against the US military is correct.
Winston Churchill once said, a lie travels around the planet at the speed of light. The truth takes awhile to catch up.
To this I am sure we are all agreed. Rape is a heinous crime of deep psychotic violence against women… anywhere, to any woman… at any time. In this context, if, repeat if, the US military is doing a better job (related by statistics) in diminishing rape and especially punishing rapists, than civilian courts perhaps, it might be more apropos to honestly study what the military is doing right instead of accusing it of lax enforcement on statistical data that might be skewed or flawed.
Catrina
Unhappy Stats:
Due to the controversy engendered by some posts on this thread, I have taken some time to research some concrete statistics that pertain to the accusation that the US military is delinquent in their duties as it pertains to sexual assault on women. This accusation was made by both Keith Olberman and Jane Harman.
First, it is important to declare that every one of the deaths and sacrifice made by all our outstanding military personnel, both male and female, is a complete tragedy. It is also an outrage that our women in the military are encountering sexual assault. These comments can not be over emphasized. We are all in accord of the goal to diminish and enforce the regulations and discipline that would diminish this heinous crime against women.
It is honest to bring forth the issue of rape in the military. However, after a second reading of Ms. Harman’s article, her accusation against the US military, based on the data she sites as the basis for her accusation, is entirely false. It cannot be supported based on that data.
Why? Ms. Harman has committed a statistical error that even a first year undergrad would not commit. That error significantly distorts what might be a growing problem in the military.
It is not even needed to accumulate sufficient data to perform a null hypothesis test. The actual sample data used as a basis for the accusation is fatally flawed. A reading of Harman’s article stated that her data came from sampling women seeking help in only one VA hospital. This is a fatally flawed sampling technique that a first year undergrad would not do.
What Ms. Harman has done is like asking the question, “Are people satisfied with the quality of their car?†Then to answer that question, pull your sample data from people sitting in a waiting room of an auto repair shop!
It is called skewing the data. When I see this from very smart people, especially a Congressperson whose articles are vetted by some of the smartest people around, Ivy League Graduate staffers, yet observe very obvious undergrad mistakes, I firmly believe such distortion is intentionally done for hidden agendas. People like this exploit the values of world liberation for all people, values we all hold on this blog, and intentionally manipulate the emotional sensitivities of well intentioned, sincere people to attack political enemies and pursue the “will to power†for selfish intent.
Such distortions also significantly damage honest activist’s efforts to help cure these social ailments because their lies drain the energy of efforts manifested by activists that really do care. When one stat is distorted, all the data is negated as suspect. Espousing hidden agendas for political reasons, only “harms†the goals of honest caring individuals. In fact, I find their actions more insidious because they know they are lying. Hence, they know they are exploiting and manipulating honest activist’ sensitivities.
As a professional statistician and Tammy Bruce style feminist, this infuriates me.
Let us some very unhappy statistics. Here are the facts concerning the sacrifices our female military personnel have made.
Percent of personnel serving (or have served) in Iraq that are female: 14% of total serving
(Presently approximately 19,600 out of 140,000 total personnel)
Percent of female military personnel total deaths in Iraq: (to date)
95 women (2.3%) out of a total of 4021 total death casualties
Of those 95 women:
36 deaths are due to non hostile action (accidents, sickness, etc.)
59 deaths are due to hostile action. (Data looks like IED or mortar attacks are the majority of reasons for the casualty.) (1.4% of all death casualties)
Please be aware every one of these deaths is mourned by the author. This mourning is extremely deeply felt for extremely personal reasons.
With that said, the data indicates my previous post is fundamentally accurate. It is quite true our brave female military personnel are in harms way. Their sacrifices are honored. Fortunately though the statistics indicate our female personnel are serving in less dangerous non combatant MOS. Hence, the policy diminishes (fortunately) the deaths of our brave female military personnel but, because they are low, creates an opportunity to exploit and distort the legitimate concern about sexual assault that honest people have, including the author via a distortion of the statistics and the hidden agenda of power politics.
It is easy now to see now how KO can distort a comment about sexual assault and women dying in combat. Such an accusation against the US military can not be founded based on this data. It too smacks of political hype and hatred. It implies that military officers do not care about their female military personnel. It indicates that the institution of our military itself is derelict in it duty. These are false accusations and need to be refuted.
Catrina
PS I have sent a report to Helen that appears to have far better data concerning sexual assault and rape in the military. I was unable to compare this data to civilian data. So it remains to be seen if the military is doing a good job or not in enforcement “in comparison with civilian enforcementâ€.
more at feministing.com
do you really think data are going to be accurate when it comes to rape? c’mon, people, a little Feminism 101 here. women don’t report rape. women whose jobs or lives are on the line – and in the hands of their rapists – especially don’t report rape.
that any do is a miracle.
i’m getting more & more angry about this, & about the apparent inability of people to understand that US SOLDIERS ARE RAPING US SOLDIERS AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT.