A week ago there was a report that U.S. service members were
“shocked” over some of the questions in the “comprehensive” sexual assault
survey demanded by the media, politicians and advocacy groups. Although the
quest for information is being driven by gender activists, the original survey
suggested that half the real and self-described victims were male. The Rand
Corporation was commissioned by the Defense Department to compile the questions
for the new survey, and it seems to be too “specific” for some—especially by
gender victim activists who rely on extremely vague definitions subject to
“interpretation” to inflate sexual
assault numbers.'
Some service members apparently complained that the
questions were “intrusive” and “invasive.” While the survey includes
“innocuous” questions about sexual “jokes,” “sexual gestures or sexual body
movements,” invitations to “sexually suggestive pictures and videos” and
requests to “establish an unwanted romantic or sexual relationship,” according
to the Associated Press it followed up with questions like “Before 9/18/201,
had anyone made you insert an object or body part into someone’s mouth, vagina
or anus when you did not want to and did not consent?”
We can see that there are considerable differences between
what the questions are asking, and how “sexual harassment” has become more
about gender politics than actual illumination; all too often, accusations of
sexual infractions can be the result of simple vindictiveness, self-pity—or in
the case of the military, a response stemming from dislike of the requirements
of military duty (in no way an uncommon occurrence).
For example, a “request” for an “unwanted romantic or sexual
relationship” can in fact have been an invitation for a simple “date,” but
depends largely on how a woman chooses to interpret it; a male’s intentions or
“seriousness” may be entirely or deliberately misinterpreted. A proper
follow-up question would be if the person who made the “request” continued to
other the “victim” after the first rejection. One should also take into account
that some women want to impress a certain kind of male (say, a minority female
trying to snag a white male), but instead their behavior attracts the attention
of less “preferable” suitors—and thus they are easily “offended.” Others have
“victim complexes” with ideas of the opposite sex in which almost any action
can be seen as negatively affecting them.'
However, people who “interpret” the data for such studies
may have a political agenda and “interpret” it as it applies to their own
personal preference, rather than reality. Furthermore, to ask someone more
specific questions about what actually took place during a sexual encounter may
have the opposite effect of what gender activists would like to see. It is too
easy to claim a “sexual harassment” and sexual assault “epidemic” when wording
is vague and easily subject to third-party “interpretation.” The more specific
questions might potentially reduce the de
facto incidents of sexual assault and rape than has been claimed, because
they are less subject to “interpretation”—and cannot be “conjectured” and
“assumed.”
This is what opponents of the survey, like Jill Loftus of
the Navy’s sexual assault prevention program, are afraid of. They say that more
specific questions “re-victimize” the victims of sexual assault, for
self-serving reasons. Yet it would only do so if the person making the charge
is afraid of admitting to a false or exaggerated claim, or have difficulty in
creating a believable scenario or context in which they claim to have suffered
sexual harassment.
The survey questions may, of course, embarrass some
test-takers who are angry that they even have to take such a survey—as if it is
“insinuating” something too personal. However, those who are victims of a
horrible crime should presumably want
people to know what exactly happened to them—especially if they had previously
not reported it. Too often the media has sensationalized from anecdotal
evidence that is usually not specific in detail or context, but the public is
to presume the “worst.” The truth is what we are owed—not claims of “epidemics”
that may be exaggerated to advance a gender victim agenda.
Of course, the results will likely be “cherry-picked” even
if they are “comprehensive”; after all, the media and gender victim advocates
ignored the parts of the 2011 CDC survey on intimate partner violence which
they didn’t like—such as the suggestion that not only was there nearly as many
men as women who claimed to be the victim of domestic violence, but men are now
increasingly more often the victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment