Gutter – hvem bry seg om dem…

 

Sentio Research gjennomførte en undersøkelse i april 2017 for Norsk Studentorganisasjon og Universitas. Undersøkelsen dekket flere områder og uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet var ett av dem. Flere artikler på Universitas refererer denne delen av undersøkelsen og de oppgir at 12% av studentene sier at de har opplevd uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet. Alle artiklene jeg har sett i Universitas refererer kun til kvinnelige studenter utsatt for dette og kun til menn som utøvere av denne uønskede oppmerksomheten. Men så kom jeg over denne artikkelen på Khrono hvor de skriver at undersøkelsen fra Sentio Research fant at det er størst andel mannlige studenter som opplever uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet fra medstudenter eller ansatte ved lærestedet:

14 prosent av mannlige studenter at de har opplevd uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet fra medstudenter eller tilsatte, mot 11 prosent av kvinnene.

Dette aspektet var tydeligvis ikke interessant for Universitas.

Denne undersøkelsen dukker også opp i Stortinget i Representantsforslag 75 S (2017-2018) hvor totaltallet 12% blir nevnt.  Her blir også en undersøkelse utført av NTNU ved skoler i Sør-Trøndelag referert. Følgende funn fra den undersøkelsen blir fremhevet i representatsforslaget:

63 pst. av jentene og 62 pst. av guttene rapporterte om minst én form for seksuell trakassering det siste året. Minst én form for seksuell tvang ble rapportert av 35 pst. av jentene og 25 pst. av guttene.

Det blir ikke nevnt i representantforslaget av 40% av guttene rapporterte seksuell trakassering fra jevnaldrende jente og heller ikke at 15% av guttene rapporterte seksuell tvang fra jevnaldrende jente. Det blir heller ikke nevnt hvilken andel av de utsatte jentene som rapporterte at en jevnaldrende jente var utøver (43% og 5%).

Forslagsstillerne  har endel gode forslag som bedre kartlegging av seksuell trakassering som også omfatter skoleelever, program for forebygging av seksuell trakassering i skolen, tidlig og alderstilpasset opplæring om kjønn, kropp, seksualitet og grensesetting, at arbeidet mot seksuell trakassering forankres i opplæringsjobben og at man gjennom forskrift ansvarliggjør rektor i saker om seksuell trakassering på lik linje med saker om mobbing.

Men det er når forslagene blir konkrete at forslagsstillerne feiler. Etter at de har referert tallene for både gutter og jenter fra undersøkelsen utført av NTNU så fremhever de følgende:

Tiltak som gir jenter verktøyene for å sette egne grenser, er derfor nødvendig.

Dette blir formulert slik i ett konkret forslag (pkt. 6):

Stortinget ber regjeringen innføre selvforsvarskurs for jenter på ungdomsskolen eller videregående skole med fokus på grensesetting. En modell for dette, inkludert opplæring av instruktører og et parallelt opplegg for gutter om respekt for grenser, må utvikles i samarbeid med relevante fagmiljøer.

De 62% og 25% av guttene som hadde opplevd seksuell trakassering og seksuelle overgrep er tydeligvis allerede glemt, feiet under teppet, ikke ansett som relevante. De trenger tydeligvis ingen konkrete rettede tiltak. Hadde forslagsstillerne bare referert til undersøkelser som kun undersøker omfang blant jenter så kunne man ha skyldt utelatelsen på uvitenhet om omfanget blant gutter. Men forslagsstillerne kan ikke skjule seg bak sin uvitenhet her.

Det gjør meg forbannet.

I et intervju med Aftenposten i 2013 sa daværende stortingsrepresentat André Oktay Dahl følgende:

Det er svært få av de 169 stortingsrepresentantene som husker at menn også utsettes for overgrep og vold.

 

Etter tolv år på Stortinget må jeg fortsatt dra politikere etter håret for å få dem til å si «kvinner og menn» når de snakker om seksuelle overgrep.

Politikerne har tydeligvis ikke lært siden dengang og André Oktay Dahl har trukket seg fra rikspolitikken.

Finnes det i dag noen på Stortingen som kan påse at utsatte gutter og menn blir inkludert?

 

 

 

Tillegg: Jeg ser at Reform har fremført noe av den samme kritikken jeg kommer med i høringsinnspill: https://reform.no/gode-anslag-forslag-seksuell-trakassering/

 

 

 

Advertisements

CDC: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance

Apart from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveys (NISVS) CDC also performs at regular intervals a survey among high school students called “Youth Risk Behaviour Surveillance” and has done so since the 1990s.

 

In 2001 they added the question

Have you ever been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when you did not want to?

to the survey.

 

Below is a chart showing the results of that questions since 2001 and up to the latest available data which is from 2015:

Continue reading

First Glimpse of NISVS 2012 Results

I have written quite a few posts about the NISVS 2010 and NISVS 2011 reports which found staggering number for male victimization of sexual violence – in particular in the “made to penetrate” category which for inexplicable reasons CDC buried by not categorizing it as rape.

 

CDC have recently published a fact sheet about sexual victimization among boys and girls under 18. The data is stated that is from the NISVS 2012 and are the first indication I’ve seen that the CDC continued with the NISVS after the one surveyed in 2011 (results were published in 2014).

 

The Fact Sheet is titled “Sexual Violence in Youth – Findings from the 2012 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey“.

 

The Fact Sheet listed a table containing key findings from the NISVS 2012:

NISVS 2012 Key Findings

 

Pilot White House Mandated Campus Climate Survey Did End Up Ignoring Male Victims

Almost a year ago I wrote a post about the correspondence I had with the pilot survey project which the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault tasked Rutgers University to do. I expressed my concern with the methodology suggested by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault in their recommendations published in April 2014.

My impression from the email exchange I had with the project team leader at Rutgers University were that they took my concerns about male victims not being measured by some of the recommended methodologies seriously and they assured me that they would be using gender neutral questions.They also said they would include my concerns in the pilot project’s feedback to the White House and the Office on Violence against Women.

The 2nd of September Rutgers University published a report with the findings from their Campus Climate survey. Which is an opportunity for me to examine to what extent my concerns were considered.

Continue reading

Bias And Unasked Questions

STIRitUP is a 24 month collaborative research project looking at interpersonal violence and abuse in young people’s relationships. The project is based in five European countries: England, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy and Norway. STIR is short for Safeguarding Teenage Intimate Relationships.

The project has conducted a survey among 4,500 pupils in these five countries. STIRitUp has published the results of that survey in the Briefing paper 2. This paper presents the survey’s main findings in table 2 — here is an excerpt of that table (only looking at physical and sexual violence):

Gender and incidence rates for experiencing IPVA

Country Gender Physical % Sexual %
Bulgaria Female 11 21
Male 15 25
Cyprus Female 10 17
Male 9 19
England Female 22 41
Male 12 14
Italy Female 9 35
Male 13 39
Norway Female 18 28
Male 8 9

Discrepancies

First I’ll just point out the discrepancies between the findings presented in the table and how they’re presented in the text.
Continue reading

A Short Status Update From ONS Regarding CSEW

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) released the latest Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) on the 12th of February 2015. Ally Fogg has a blogpost on it describing how the fact that CSEW 2014 showed the lowest rate of sexual violence since the records began in 1981 isn’t reported by the media.

Some may recall that I’ve previously written about how I asked the ONS why CSEW doesn’t include victims of being made to penetrate — even though that crime is punishable with up to life in prison according to the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 Section 4 subsection 4c and d. The ONS wrote back stating that they would look into adding questions to capture these victims in the CSEW.

A while back I decided it was time to ask for a status update on this matter from the ONS. I wrote them an email asking them how the work with looking into this issue is going and if there is an estimate on which future CSEW will include questions designed to capture victims of SOA 2003 Section 4.4 (c-d). I got a reply the same day stating:

Dear XYZ,

Thank you for getting back in touch with us.

We are now undergoing our annual survey development that Laura mentioned, for which we are agreeing the questions that will be asked in the 2015/16 survey – this is a long process that involves working with our stakeholders and managing the priorities for information gathered by the survey.  Capturing victims of those sexual offences of Section 4.4 is part of this process – the process is obviously not yet complete, but at the moment it is our intention that the changes can be made for the 2015/16 survey such that respondents will be asked about these offences with effect from next April.

Although one could’ve wished for these questions to be included sooner this is still a confirmation that they indeed will include them and that we can expect that the 2015/16 CSEW will count victims of being made to penetrate. The CSEW 2015/16 will be likely be published somewhere around February 2017.

 

This post has also been published on FeministCritics

White House Mandated Campus Climate Surveys Likely To Ignore Male Victims

Update: Rutgers University has confirmed that they will not be using the SES.

This post has also been published on Feminist Critics.

 

After I wrote this post I sent a mail to the leader of the pilot survey project at Rutgers University expressing my concern for the recommendation of SES as a possible instrument and explained how SES exclude a subset of male victims of rape. I also outlined Mary P Koss’ stance that it’s not appropriate to call it rape if a man is made to penetrate a woman without his consent.

I got a reply within the same day stating that the pilot project at Rutgers would not use the SES, but rather the questionnaire used by CSA – The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study by Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher and Martin.
She went on to write that The Rutgers’ pilot survey will use the following language: “Sexual assault” and “sexual violence” refer to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient and include remarks about physical appearance, persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient, threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior, as well as unwanted touching and unwanted oral, anal or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration. These behaviors could be initiated by someone known or unknown to the recipient, including someone they are in a relationship with.

She stated that:

While we do not distinguish between being made to penetrate someone versus being penetrated against one’s wishes, these are both included in the broader definition we use.

I wrote back that even though I was relieved they weren’t going to use Koss’ SES I feared that the stereotype of the penetrator being the perpetrator and the one being penetrated being the victim might skew their results.

She wrote back again thanking me for the input, saying that my concerns were appreciated and valid. She also asked my permission to include my messages in their feedback about the pilot study to the White house and the Office on Violence against Women (OVW). I gave permission to do so.

My impression is that she took my comments and criticism very seriously.

When time permits I’ll put up a post with screenshots of the mails.

My original post follows below:

 

Recently someone on my feed retweeted a reference to a study by Jennifer Freyd on sexual violence at the University of Oregon. I decided to spend some time looking into it and what I found deeply disturbed me.

I’ll start from the beginning:

Continue reading