5 ms·

The NSF itself said that sexual harassment is a problem at the base. They surveyed women there and 59 percent said they had been harassed. There have been a few

by rafram 2y ago

The NSF itself said that sexual harassment is a problem at the base. They surveyed women there and 59 percent said they had been harassed. There have been a few named individuals accused of harassment there and a few victims who’ve come forward without asking for anonymity, but the point is that it’s so pervasive that there’s almost no point in trying to find individual perpetrators. Over half of all women at McMurdo are harassed! https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210418182/antarctica-sexual-harassment-national-science-foundation-investigation https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210418182/antarctica-sexual-...

avar 2y ago
> The NSF itself said that sexual harassment > is a problem at the base. I'm not claiming otherwise, I was commenting on how bizarre it is to work this into an article about a transport bus in Antarctica. > They surveyed women there and 59 percent > said they had been harassed. I don't think they did. Did you read the report? The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. The report certainly contains some deeply troubling anecdotes, but (no surprise) there's a wide chasm between what it claims, and how it's been reported on. But don't take my word for it, read what they have to say on page 28: "[...]it is important to note that the survey and focus group questions were not designed to elicit information regarding the prevalence or incidence of sexual assault within USAP. This remains an effort for the future. Instead, the qualitative and quantitative data elicited extensive information regarding individuals’ experiences and perceptions. Team LDSS did not independently investigate or otherwise seek to verify the accuracy of individuals’ reporting." That 59% claim comes from a footnote on page 33 of the report. 33%/47% of men/women said "sexual assault" was a problem in the USAP, and 48%/72% of men/women said the same of "sexual assault". The 59% is then women respondents who had a "negative experience" with either assault or harassment. I don't believe that means, as you claim, that "they had been harassed". Earlier on page 30 they say: Approximately 40% of all focus group participants discussed a personal negative experience with sexual assault or sexual harassment Neither of those percentages in footnotes appear to be supported by accompanying source data. But since they go out of their way to distinguish between a "negative experience" and "personal negative experience", the 59% appears to refer to some broader category than personal experience with harassment or assault. 1. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report.pdf https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report....
- petsfed 2y ago
  >The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment: [0] Perhaps they can repeat the original study in light of the suggested methods just published. 0. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1461655/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles...
  - avar 2y ago
    > That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Yes, clearly it's going to be somewhere over 14%. I'm mainly critiquing the lazy reporting here. In reality that "59%" number is a wild guess, and should be reported as such. > Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment It's really not in a similar environment at all. That study is about estimating the rates of harassment, assault etc. of professional fisheries observers. I.e. independently employed "fisheries narcs" (my paraphrasing) who are dropped onto a fishing vessel for a limited time. "Upon returning from deployment, all observers are debriefed to ensure data quality and integrity". That's a much more controlled dataset than "I hung out in Antarctica for a year, and I and 1/4 of the people that were there with me responded to this survey long afterwards, for whatever reason". Even then, they have huge error bars on their 95% confidence intervals, e.g. as noted by this revealing paragraph: > "Our estimates of observer victimization among years indicate that 0.4 to 1.8% of observers experienced assault, 22 to 34% experienced intimidation, coercion, and hostile work environments, and 9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment". So, e.g. 9%-43%. That's a pretty huge difference. In any case, we're way into the weeds here. Nothing I'm saying here is calling into question the the important underlying question here, that it certainly seems that the Antarctic program has some pretty screwed up problems with harassment etc., and how they're dealing with it. I was mainly critiquing the lazy reporting of that study, i.e. to cherry-pick some overly-specific (but ultimately wildly extrapolated) percentage like 59%, and running with that, when (as I quoted above) the very study itself you're quoting is telling you it can't and shouldn't be used like that. It's doubly unfortunate because if you page through that NSF study, there really are some pretty revealing quotes in some of the free-form answers submitted as part of the survey, clearly from people who've had a lot of time to think about and reflect on the issues they encountered in Antarctica. This one in particular stuck with me (I looked up the full quote just now, several days later): We can’t really have a zero-tolerance policy on assault and harassment because for 8.5 months there are no planes unless there is a really serious emergency. And I don’t think the program will ever fly planes in to get people out who have assaulted or harassed people. The issues with it are far too many. So, since we can’t have a zero-tolerance policy[...] Those sorts of constraints seem to both drive a lot of the problems with places like Antarctica, as well as well as being a big part of why certain people are drawn to work in those places.
redeux 2y ago
Terribly, 59% is actually lower than the rate of sexual harassment for women in the USA, which is around 77% according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/facts-behind-metoo-movement-national-study-sexual-harassment-and-assault https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/facts-behind-metoo-movement-n...
- rafram 2y ago
  77% is over a lifetime, but 59% is just over the one or two summers that someone spends at McMurdo, so it makes sense that it would be lower. But if there weren’t a serious culture of harassment, you’d think it would be much lower.
- petsfed 2y ago
  I want to buttress a sibling comment and dig into how misleading your quoted statistics are. While there are complicating factors, in general, probabilities add linearly. So for the average woman in the US, who lives for 77 years, she therefore has a 1% chance of being sexually harassed during any 1 year of her life. Obviously, this follows some distribution, but still, the odds of it happening in any one year of her life probably peaks around 5-10%. I couldn't find good data on how many seasons the average Antarctic worker puts in, but let's say its around 10. That means the average woman working in Antarctica has a 5.9% chance of getting sexually harassed per year. Except, the average contract length in Antarctica is 4-6 months. So while a woman in the US has a 0.5% chance of being sexually harassed in a given 6 month time frame, a woman in Antarctica has an average 11.8% chance of being sexually harassed for the same time frame. Do you understand the difference?
  - thelaxiankey 2y ago
    not sure about anyone else, but the scientists I know who worked there only stayed for a few seasons, which makes this pretty damning.
  - bitcurious 2y ago
    >While there are complicating factors, in general, probabilities add linearly. So for the average woman in the US, who lives for 77 years, she therefore has a 1% chance of being sexually harassed during any 1 year of her life. Obviously the average survey respondent was not 77 years old, so the math here is wrong. Other assumptions we could make: prepubescent and post-menopausal women are not being sexually harassed at the same rate as women of reproductive age. I think your point would stand with steelman math, so why strawman it?

by rafram 2y ago

avar 2y ago

> The NSF itself said that sexual harassment > is a problem at the base. I'm not claiming otherwise, I was commenting on how bizarre it is to work this into an article about a transport bus in Antarctica. > They surveyed women there and 59 percent > said they had been harassed. I don't think they did. Did you read the report? The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. The report certainly contains some deeply troubling anecdotes, but (no surprise) there's a wide chasm between what it claims, and how it's been reported on. But don't take my word for it, read what they have to say on page 28: "[...]it is important to note that the survey and focus group questions were not designed to elicit information regarding the prevalence or incidence of sexual assault within USAP. This remains an effort for the future. Instead, the qualitative and quantitative data elicited extensive information regarding individuals’ experiences and perceptions. Team LDSS did not independently investigate or otherwise seek to verify the accuracy of individuals’ reporting." That 59% claim comes from a footnote on page 33 of the report. 33%/47% of men/women said "sexual assault" was a problem in the USAP, and 48%/72% of men/women said the same of "sexual assault". The 59% is then women respondents who had a "negative experience" with either assault or harassment. I don't believe that means, as you claim, that "they had been harassed". Earlier on page 30 they say: Approximately 40% of all focus group participants discussed a personal negative experience with sexual assault or sexual harassment Neither of those percentages in footnotes appear to be supported by accompanying source data. But since they go out of their way to distinguish between a "negative experience" and "personal negative experience", the 59% appears to refer to some broader category than personal experience with harassment or assault. 1. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report.pdf https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/documents/USAP%20SAHPR%20Report....

petsfed 2y ago
>The survey[1] had a 24% response rate, so that 59% number is extrapolated from that, it's actually just over 14%. That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment: [0] Perhaps they can repeat the original study in light of the suggested methods just published. 0. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1461655/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles...
- avar 2y ago
  > That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Yes, clearly it's going to be somewhere over 14%. I'm mainly critiquing the lazy reporting here. In reality that "59%" number is a wild guess, and should be reported as such. > Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment It's really not in a similar environment at all. That study is about estimating the rates of harassment, assault etc. of professional fisheries observers. I.e. independently employed "fisheries narcs" (my paraphrasing) who are dropped onto a fishing vessel for a limited time. "Upon returning from deployment, all observers are debriefed to ensure data quality and integrity". That's a much more controlled dataset than "I hung out in Antarctica for a year, and I and 1/4 of the people that were there with me responded to this survey long afterwards, for whatever reason". Even then, they have huge error bars on their 95% confidence intervals, e.g. as noted by this revealing paragraph: > "Our estimates of observer victimization among years indicate that 0.4 to 1.8% of observers experienced assault, 22 to 34% experienced intimidation, coercion, and hostile work environments, and 9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment". So, e.g. 9%-43%. That's a pretty huge difference. In any case, we're way into the weeds here. Nothing I'm saying here is calling into question the the important underlying question here, that it certainly seems that the Antarctic program has some pretty screwed up problems with harassment etc., and how they're dealing with it. I was mainly critiquing the lazy reporting of that study, i.e. to cherry-pick some overly-specific (but ultimately wildly extrapolated) percentage like 59%, and running with that, when (as I quoted above) the very study itself you're quoting is telling you it can't and shouldn't be used like that. It's doubly unfortunate because if you page through that NSF study, there really are some pretty revealing quotes in some of the free-form answers submitted as part of the survey, clearly from people who've had a lot of time to think about and reflect on the issues they encountered in Antarctica. This one in particular stuck with me (I looked up the full quote just now, several days later): We can’t really have a zero-tolerance policy on assault and harassment because for 8.5 months there are no planes unless there is a really serious emergency. And I don’t think the program will ever fly planes in to get people out who have assaulted or harassed people. The issues with it are far too many. So, since we can’t have a zero-tolerance policy[...] Those sorts of constraints seem to both drive a lot of the problems with places like Antarctica, as well as well as being a big part of why certain people are drawn to work in those places.

redeux 2y ago

Terribly, 59% is actually lower than the rate of sexual harassment for women in the USA, which is around 77% according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/facts-behind-metoo-movement-national-study-sexual-harassment-and-assault https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/facts-behind-metoo-movement-n...

rafram 2y ago
77% is over a lifetime, but 59% is just over the one or two summers that someone spends at McMurdo, so it makes sense that it would be lower. But if there weren’t a serious culture of harassment, you’d think it would be much lower.
petsfed 2y ago
I want to buttress a sibling comment and dig into how misleading your quoted statistics are. While there are complicating factors, in general, probabilities add linearly. So for the average woman in the US, who lives for 77 years, she therefore has a 1% chance of being sexually harassed during any 1 year of her life. Obviously, this follows some distribution, but still, the odds of it happening in any one year of her life probably peaks around 5-10%. I couldn't find good data on how many seasons the average Antarctic worker puts in, but let's say its around 10. That means the average woman working in Antarctica has a 5.9% chance of getting sexually harassed per year. Except, the average contract length in Antarctica is 4-6 months. So while a woman in the US has a 0.5% chance of being sexually harassed in a given 6 month time frame, a woman in Antarctica has an average 11.8% chance of being sexually harassed for the same time frame. Do you understand the difference?
- thelaxiankey 2y ago
  not sure about anyone else, but the scientists I know who worked there only stayed for a few seasons, which makes this pretty damning.
- bitcurious 2y ago
  >While there are complicating factors, in general, probabilities add linearly. So for the average woman in the US, who lives for 77 years, she therefore has a 1% chance of being sexually harassed during any 1 year of her life. Obviously the average survey respondent was not 77 years old, so the math here is wrong. Other assumptions we could make: prepubescent and post-menopausal women are not being sexually harassed at the same rate as women of reproductive age. I think your point would stand with steelman math, so why strawman it?