False sex crime reports in the military? No way!

This article, “False Reports Outpace Sex Assaults In The Military” is an important item:

From 2009 to 2012, the number of sexual abuse reports rose from 3,244 to 3,374 — a 4 percent increase.

During the same period, the number of what the Pentagon calls “unfounded allegations” based on completed investigations of those reports rose from 331 to 444 — a 35 percent increase.

In 2012, there were 2,661 completed investigations, meaning that the 444 false complaints accounted for about 17 percent of all closed cases last year. False reports accounted for about 13 percent of closed cases in 2009.

It’s almost as though the reports of a Rape Culture with 1/3 women in the military being raped is overstated or something.

We don’t know what constitutes a “false complaint” or how much officer discretion is involved, but maybe this is a good sign, because a 17% false accusation rate is the tip of the iceberg. Believe it. But reporting like  this piece, which cites numbers purporting to show that the Army is lax in dealing with sexual assault complaints (e.g. cites 2010: 19k members sexually assaulted, 13.5% of incidents reported with 17.5% of those 13.5% being prosecuted–even if you take the numbers at face value–maybe some of those 86.5% of unprosecuted incidents might be false accusations, hmm?) doesn’t even allow for the possibility of false accusation.

“Female service members told me that some women invite problems which lead men on and then result in advances the woman can’t turn off. Too often, such female culpability leads to allegations of sexual contact, assault and then the women feign innocence.”

Huh what?! Putting women in units with men causes problems with cohesion and culture, and women are partially responsible for putting themselves in situations they didn’t want?! Takes two to tango, indeed. It’s also time to start asking how many women are accused of sexual harassment in the military and to go black knight on that.

“Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Center for Military Readiness, said the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Office (SAPRO) is ignoring the problem of false reports.

“Unsubstantiated accusations remain a significant problem, but the SAPRO is doing nothing about it,” Mrs. Donnelly said. “I went through both volumes and found no evidence of concern about the significant 17 percent of ‘unfounded accusations.’ Something should be done to reduce the numbers of false accusations, the first step being an admission that the problem exists.”

DOD is ignoring the problem? Surprise! That can’t possibly be due to the feminized, PC-oriented, careerist officers that are primarily concerned with being promoted, not combat effectiveness. Ironically, there are no advocates for men in the military.

Standard position: sexual assault and abuse should not be tolerated, just in case anyone thinks I’m positing otherwise.

However, people respond to incentives, and women in the military have incentives to “feel pretty,” which encourages men.

Women have policy incentives to report falsely if there are other disciplinary or interpersonal issues involved, like if she doesn’t like him for some reason. (To be sure, there may be local incentives not to report, but to ignore or discount the incentives that exist to report is one-sided and ignorant.)

Officers have incentives to aggressively prosecute even somewhat credible reports of abuse or assault. It’s a career booster. This results in a culture of fear (of working with women) and resentment (towards the Army and women) among the men, reinforced by mandatory Equal Opportunity powerpoint and Examples’ heads staked on the lawns. It does not result in a warrior culture capable of winning wars.

These are merely some of the side effects of integrating women into the military, and detract from combat effectiveness. The implicit equalist or femi-is-inherently-Good philosophy of the PC femi-careereaucrat cabal is starting to crack under empirical evidence. I only hope it goes before we needlessly lose a lot of good boys and girls in the mud on foreign fields somewhere.

Meeting the Parents, Redux

 

 

Something interesting that’s come up a few times is the fact that the power dynamic in meeting girls’ parents varies by the girl’s age. It’s a reflection of the girl’s SMV. Well, no, that’s not quite right. Think of it more as a leading indicator of what’s coming, not a full current status.

When I was in high school, meeting a girl’s parents was vaguely anxiety-inducing event. I thought the parents held the power–that they were gatekeepers in a way. I always felt like I was being assessed. This, ultimately, was a good thing; parents ought to protect their daughters and raise them to make long-sighted life decisions. I had no track record, so they had to screen.

Fortunately, I have a track record now, and it’s a pretty good one. So the dynamic has changed.

As I got older, I have had occasion to meet some younger womens’ parents. The 18-year-old’s folks viewed me with cordial suspicion. They were still protective of their daughter (probably rightfully so) and she was looking for their approval. But lo! I felt no pressure, because I had accomplishments and potential to point to. Absolutely no stress on this end.

On the other hand, when a girl’s nearing her expiration date–mid-to-late 20s–, the parents are screening, for sure, but they’r far more welcoming. As one dad told his daughter after meeting me “If you don’t marry him, then I will.”

As their little girls lose their market value, the parents are acutely aware of this, and are rooting for them to find a guy, a suitable guy, to marry and make babies with. But often it’s too late for the girls–they’re already past their best selling proposition, but they don’t want to realize it or don’t want to hear the increasingly nagging warnings issuing from their mothers. As a girl told me after dinner with her folks, “I was sitting there and all I was thinking about was that [this guy] had [done X and Y to me].”

It’s like the other side of reading Susan Patton, a former ardent feminist, as she sees the light, but from the guy’s perspective, a little later in life… and well, it’s not them putting me on the stand. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. I’m screening them to see how they’ve raised their daughter; if they’re stable; if they’re people I’d want to be around. Unfortunately for them, my responsibility is not to their daughter; my responsibility is to my future wife and family.

I wonder if most parents see a daughter not marrying–aging past 30 with no serious commitment in sight–as a failure. To be sure, it’s the girl’s life and responsibility, and most parents don’t understand the market today. But it has to be depressing to look at one’s child and see her squander her best assets, her youth, vivaciousness, and beauty, in pursuit of hollow pleasure or worthless credentials. But the parents should have been teaching that earlier. And the daughters should have been listening.

 

Iron Man: Quick Red-pill reaction

 

I just watched Iron Man 3. My thoughts in the theater were pretty much the following:

1) Someone new was writing dialogue and story. RDJ was a treat as usual, but the characters had distinctly different feels from the first couple flicks. The villain was pretty convincing until we found out who the villain actually was.

2) That final fight scene took way too long. Just get over it already, I almost overdosed on CGI. And there was really no reason for the heat-people to die when they did, since they regenerated all the other times.

3) What happened to Tony Stark? He went from deftly deflecting every sort of shit-test from every sort of woman in the first movies to collapsing in Pepper’s arms in this one. She was taking no shit–had his balls in a vise. It seemed symptomatic of the beta-ization that happens when guys get in relationships, and sad.

The Pepper Potts who “took out the trash” and so tenderly cared to Tony’s shrapnel-ridden heart in the previous flicks now busted his balls for the giant bunny and for his suit-building hobby with no concern for his clearly deteriorating state. That, and she was flirty with the super-villain, who was putting moves on her in her office. It was a giant dynamic reversal from the first movies. Has Tony lost his mojo? Has he stopped being a careless asshole? Has his storied ego finally deflated, and with it his ability to do anything with anyone and live life on his terms?

At the end of the movie, Tony blew up his toys. Sure, there was the teaser that Iron Man would be back. I was wondering whether he did this of his own accord or whether he did it at the behest of Pepper. Typically when a guy is shamed or bullied into giving up his independence (in this case, his cave and his toys), it means that he’s capitulated. Is Tony expecting ahappily ever after” from the position of supplication?

None of the other reviews I’ve seen have quite put their finger on this changed dynamic, but it was definitely apparent. The movie’s been called “darker” with a “more sardonic” Tony Stark. Maybe it’s player burnout and he’s seeking the higher way.

Just a quick reaction.

 

 

Lean In: A Women in the Workforce Math Update

I recently read “Lean In” by Sheryl Sandberg.

I approached it with an open mind (it’s useful to know how people perceive what’s going on) and found some useful knowledge about how to approach professional mentorship, avoiding self-selection, etc.

Most of the book came from a very contemporary equalist point of view–that is to say

1) the goal of equality is inherently good

2) equality being defined as proportionate statistical parity among all groups

I of course disagree with the definition of equality she presented (probably flowing from her following of  Gloria Steinem), and this post isn’t about dismantling the underlying blank-slate assumptions or stats that Sheryl uses in her messaging, each of which would require separate posts. Further, I’m not here trying to address her argument that women ought to increase their workforce participation by simultaneously dealing with discrimination and internal self-selecting behaviors.

No, what this is about is some interesting facts that she presented on opt-out rates–that’s the measure of how quickly and how many women leave the workforce. From her citations:

-From a survey of classes from the Chicago Booth school of business: at graduation, 89% of women are full-time employed. At 6 years out, 78% are full-time employed. At 10 years out, 62% are full-time employed.

- From Harvard: Fifteen years after graduation, ~60% of women are full-time employed 15 years after graduation. Some studies have the full-time employment rate at only 45%.

- Women’s labor force participation peaked in 1999 at 60%.

So it seems like the people most able to make choices (top graduates) are choosing to opt out at about the same rate as the larger female population. They have the most career and personal freedom in career and personal choices. Therefore, their choices can be assumed to be reflective of what women would do in their ‘state of nature’ of an economic boom time.

Now, leaving aside for the moment the implicit assumption that 100% female labor force participation is a good thing, we now have empirical data which to frame my earlier post in which I (messily) tried to put together a framework for what people can realistically expect “parity” will really look like in the executive level workplace (again, assuming the current market is really inefficient). Although some studies have elite-female-graduate employment rates at only 45%, we’ll use that 60% as a benchmark since it’s from Sheryl’s own data.

With 60% labor force participation for women, and about 90-95% for men, you can realistically expect ~1.5 men to each woman in executive positions. This is a structural condition and results in an approximate ceiling of 30% of women in top executive suites. (50% female population * 60% labor participation), even without taking into account the greater male variability that would likely further push the percentage of women in top executive slots down.

So any complaints about unequal boardroom representation is inherently and demonstrably flawed–there should be no more than 30% of boards of directors composition being women unless women are being dramatically and unequally selected for the boards. This would imply a hefty economic premium for selecting them, indeed.

And it further illustrates why statistical parity models are BS–they don’t account for distributions of individual talents, abilities, and preferences.

Take Back “Short-stuff”: End Height Privilege Now!

Heard from a friend:

“I don’t think people realize what it means to be height-disadvantaged in this country. It’s a serious issue. 50% of people are below* average height, and 85% are below 1 standard deviation below the average! If this was any other group, there would be howls of outrage, but what do you hear in the media? Silence. The average-and-tall-person dominated media is silent on the systematic oppression of short people.

Why does this matter? Well, altitudinally-privileged people earn more, are more likely to reach high executive positions, get promoted,  earn more, enjoy success in sex, be natural leaders, and just plain win.

Short people aren’t allowed on roller coasters. Overhead bins and most public seating arrangements cater to tall people. This is obvious discrimination meant to construct a hostile environment.

Height is not biological. Height is a social construct, and it’s not fair, either. We demand equality. We need to band together to raise height awareness and make people aware of their unconscious height discrimination.

They may not even be aware of it, but it’s a serious issue. We need to issue bracelets to tall people so they’re aware of their Tall Privilege.

Further, heightism disproportionately affects women, who tend to be more height-disadvantaged–so if you’re heightist, you discriminate against women too.

It’s time to end the madness. We’re having a Midget Parade to take back the word “Shorty.”

Separate is not equal!

*literally, heh

What’s College For?

Walter Russell Mead at Via Meadia has this posting today:

“As nearly half of American college grads work in jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree while struggling to pay off crushing student debt, lawmakers and educators are beginning to ask a critical question: What is college for?”

Indeed.

I often explain that college has three main sources of real value:

1) The actual knowledge / skills gained (Math vs communication vs analytical thinking vs polemical ability, etc)

2) The Signaling value of the degree, i.e. what the institution you attend and major you select say about you, primarily to future employers/clients/etc (E.g. Electrical Engineering from MIT vs Gender Studies from UCLA)

3) the network you get from going to a given institution (e.g. Harvard)

To some extent, all three of these things factor into future earnings, which is the return on the degree and the absolute yardstick of value. But drivers of those earnings are generally captured in the three factors.

This model would ideally explain price differentials between a Stanford University and a University of Phoenix–the former scoring high on all three indices, and the latter scoring fairly low on all except (maybe) knowledge/skills. Current distortions are due to the current model of pricing at colleges and distorting effects of college loan subsidies.

Regardless, for the student, it’s important to understand where you expect to get your value, and pay accordingly. For everybody else, it’s important to recognize that these are levers that can move people into or out of college, and that college isn’t the only means (although it’s a very generally accepted and centralized one) of getting these things.

The article also states that:

“Florida lawmakers have toyed with encouraging students to study engineering by making their tuition cheaper than humanities majors’.”

Pricing by degrees is a great way to set tuition, but these lawmakers have it exactly backwards. Pricing degrees to encourage students to do one thing or another is social engineering. What ought to happen instead is splitting tuition out by all degrees, and letting students decide which one to go after based on the value accrued to that student. In other words, put degree selection in the context of a price-based marketplace. But the illustrated example is just silly.

Making certain degrees artificially cheap is a way to devalue the degree, not to get more qualified engineers. It’s the same logical fallacy that plagued housing (observed: middle-class families have houses.  therefore, if we give houses to poor people they’ll be middle-class) and college degrees as a whole (observed: degree-holders earn more. therefore, if we give everybody degrees then we’ll all be more productive).

If I were King For A Day, I’d impose a requirement to be able to logically distinguish cause and effect on anybody running for office.

Women in Combat series: Part N

In this case, N is for aNecdotal, which is one of the favorite debate tactics of the women-in-combat-roles proponents.

Here’s the article, a bunch of first-person testimony from women who have done genuinely great things on deployments.

“Women get flustered under fire. They’re too fragile, too emotional. They lack the ferocity required to take a life. They can’t handle pain. They’re a distraction, a threat to cohesion, a provocative tease to close-quartered men. These are the sort of myths you hear from people who oppose the U.S. military’s evolving new rules about women in combat. But for women who have already been in combat, who have earned medals fighting alongside men, the war stories they tell don’t sound a thing like myths”

Hey, I’ve got it. Great stories on killing the enemy, doing the buddy carries, being one of the guys, etc.

However, this article does nothing to rebut the central claims of those against women in combat roles (specifically infantry), which is that integration would lessen the aggregate effectiveness of those units. Effectiveness is not effected solely on the battlefield, although that is its primary measure. Other things, such as culture, esprit-de-corp, training, etc, play roles as well.

To wit: read the incidents of sexual assault, accommodations, etc. The guys’ fault? Maybe, perhaps even majority so. However, the evaluative criteria of the integrationist crowd should be centered around the following questions:

1. are these incidents directly correlated to the fact that women are present? (answer: yes)

2. do the incidents increase or decrease the overall effectiveness of the units? (answer: decrease)

3. is the value-added by the women in the combat roles less than, equal to, or greater than the comparable value added by men had men been in those roles? (answer: Mostly less-than. Greater-than only happens, as one of the dissenting females noted, when only women can provide the skillset needed to accomplish the mission. The absolute Best Case is equal-to, which, given other negative externalities, should result in the logical conclusion that adding women to combat roles is a net negative for combat effectiveness. Read the anecdotes to get a sense of how many and what type of each are present, but keep in mind that these are selected stories, and capture isolated point stories, not aggregate experiences of either these women or their units. And a net negative, in an ideal world, ought to indicate to all reasonable observers that the change is one that shouldn’t be pursued.)

Even apart from the Katie Petronio-esque counterarguments about physical combat efficacy, the easy out is to say “well, men shouldn’t do that stuff!” However, if you are premising your argument for integration on an idealized military cultural environment that does not exist, then you are not arguing for combat effectiveness. You are arguing for changing a culture to accommodate the preferences of a group of people who otherwise would not be effective in that environment, which is a whole different proposition and much larger undertaking with consequences that you cannot fully foresee.

So I applaud the women who threw the grenades, killed the enemy, and flew the warthog home. I feel for the ones who suffered victimization and abuse in a hostile culture. I regret that some women felt that they had to push through hip fractures (!) to be taken seriously. But all of those stories do not mean that the policy change is a good one, or that the military ought to accommodate women in the most combat-heavy roles.