Lets start with the truth grenade first...
" YES YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS NOR TO CREATE DECEPTION FOR ANY REASON "
Yes, now back to the title/question - came to me because the person asking me is, like me, Anti-Sexual Harassment/Anti-Sexual Assault but they're not from Agriculture & I am. I was asked if it's true that Agriculture were such a bunch of animals or not. In fact I was asked how many of the farmers are disgusting sexual predators...
I said I wouldn't have thought the "93% of women in Agricutlure had experienced Sexual Harassment" was correct or hoped it wasn't. Said I'd have to wait for facts because if things are that bad then it is without any knowledge or understanding on my part that it was that the case. It is a seriously disturbing claim/statistic.
The stat cited was the one cited at the #ustoo lunch presentation that was organised by the RRRW Network, which later in one speech was referred to as the "metoo/ustoo movement". I found the stat, I found some of the speeches and spoke to some who were there. Its since been repeated by a number of people on Social Media & the written press.
Here is what I learnt.
The stat of note that paints agriculture and more generally the majority of men of agriculture potentially as sexual harassers & vile predators was that "93% of women..." in agriculture had experienced sexual harassment.
For what it's worth, 1% is unacceptable. It doesn't matter what the severity is nor the amount. The number and the severity are 2 completely separate aspects and both should be zero. 93% represents a disgusting level more acceptable in herd of vicious animals. It's a glaring indictment and utterly appalling.
So next, go find the stat & how it was arrived at.
It was referred to as "research" so there must be a research paper. I found it and still going through it but first glance is glaring & worrying.
It was "research" from a 2015 PhD thesis by Dr Rachel Skye Saunders. It was also used to form a foundation plank of her book that soon after went on sale. She is deemed a Sex Discrimination expert, a paid speaker & a paid consultant on the topic.
So, the God-send is it's got to be peer reviewed research, with proper methodology, interpretative mapping of data to guide the assessment of the data & it must have academic supervision. It has to be backed up & others have to publicly agree with the method of the conclusion & agree with the conclusion. That's how t works...right?
I'm not even going to touch that, I'm looking solely at the stat that now paints people in Agriculture at seriously high risk of abuse due to the extremely high number of abusers and predators...possibly.
The researcher interviewed 107 women but in another place it states 101.
Irrelevant but let's press on...
You read for yourself...here's a quote from Page 4 which shocked & appalled me...
" Supporting the central argument are key empirical findings from the 107 interviews that form part of this study.
Of the 84 rural women interviewed, 73% reported having experienced unwelcome, sexualised behaviour in their workplace. For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment.
70% of women in the study also described having observed a female colleague suffering from incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace. "
I was so shocked because not only is it appalling in nature, the magnitude of the problem is devastating to any reasonable person. But the numbers intrigued me.
1) "Of the 84 rural women interviewed, 73% reported having experienced unwelcome, sexualised behaviour in their workplace."
73% of 84 rural women interviewed is 61.32 individuals. I'm not sure how .32 of an individual asserts a position that applies to some 44.700 individuals according to the A.B.S.
Perhaps there's a sensible explanation to the anomaly but this is a stat claiming extremely serious & unacceptable behaviour.
2) "For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment."
73% of 84 rural women interviewed is 61.32 individuals. I'm not sure how .32 of an individual asserts a position that applies to some 44.700 individuals according to the A.B.S.
Perhaps there's a sensible explanation to the anomaly but this is a stat claiming extremely serious & unacceptable behaviour.
2) "For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment."
Its a statistic that's been touted several times in the press and on the talk circuit since. That "93% of women in agriculture have experienced sexual harassment"
I read the report/thesis, all 355+ pages of it and there it was in a table on page 58
I read the report/thesis, all 355+ pages of it and there it was in a table on page 58
So now we see that "For women within this cohort who were employed in the agricultural industry this figure was even more alarming, with 93% reporting having experienced sexual harassment" is based on the answers of just 14 individuals.
Whatever happened to those 14 individuals is unacceptable no matter where it sits on anyone's perceived "seriousness spectrum" if there is one
Appalling & unacceptable whatever it is/was.
However the use of the 14 interviews to produce a stat that 93% of women (out of roughly 44,700) in Agriculture have experienced sexual harassment is demonstrably wrong and intellectually bankrupt as it casts a false, distorted & misleading accusation on Agriculture as a workplace.
Much of the thesis I don't have any problem with. But making massively significantly claims based on such a small sample number of people? No thanks.
Claims that affect people across an entire nation, a reputation of an huge industry claimed to be shockingly degrading based on 14 people. No Thanks.
Its a big conclusion from such a small data set.
But then this on page 271...
Whatever happened to those 14 individuals is unacceptable no matter where it sits on anyone's perceived "seriousness spectrum" if there is one
Appalling & unacceptable whatever it is/was.
However the use of the 14 interviews to produce a stat that 93% of women (out of roughly 44,700) in Agriculture have experienced sexual harassment is demonstrably wrong and intellectually bankrupt as it casts a false, distorted & misleading accusation on Agriculture as a workplace.
Much of the thesis I don't have any problem with. But making massively significantly claims based on such a small sample number of people? No thanks.
Claims that affect people across an entire nation, a reputation of an huge industry claimed to be shockingly degrading based on 14 people. No Thanks.
Its a big conclusion from such a small data set.
But then this on page 271...
I do not in any way support nor excuse the sexual harassment of anyone, anywhere. One instance is one too many.
With that firmly in mind the PhD Candidate has, since the thesis, made the comment, nay repeated it as have others that "93% of women in agriculture have experienced sexual harassment" when it was based on a minimum 14 individuals.
That sort of conclusion is unacceptable & deceptive.
This is hardly a case of research conclusions made cautiously. The author went on to write & sell a book & currently makes income from talk circuit where this claim is used.
I am in favour of anything that reduces or hopefully prevents sexual harassment and sexual assault in ANY workplace or anywhere else. But I cannot support the intellectually corrupt conclusion that paints an extremely horrible picture of the majority of people in Agriculture.
Agriculture is currently under a huge attack on many fronts. Recently Agriculture has been lobbed grenades saying farm dams contributed greatly to global warming along with the other claimed culprit...animal production. Then there's the attack on not just Live Export but farm animal production as well as the use of Glyphosate.
I notice 2 of the people who have been very vocal against Live Export have been journalist Tracey Spicer & WA Ag. minister Alannah McTeirnan. Both of whom were at the #USTOO event where the author of this thesis made the false & misleading comments about Agriculture. Just an aside I'd hope.
The claim, whatever the truth maybe is intellectually corrupt.
I'm in favour of anything that reduces, prevents or eliminates Sexual Harassment & Sexual Assault in but I am not in favour of misleading stats from inconclusive data set that paints many males in Agriculture as sexual predators.
As I cited elsewhere the unintended backlash has begun where two primary producers (of different genders, irrelevant as it is) have said they will no longer hire women because they want incidents to stop & especially if there's risk of litigation to them for failing to provide a safe workplace.
#metoo had some unintended & unfair repercussions, seems #ustoo might too.
In a small regard, its already gone sideways & some of the prominent players haven't even noticed.
Aust Bureau of Statistics says there are currently approximately 44,700 females employed in Agriculture. (**)
If you interview 14 individuals & the answers from 14 people then form a claim that covers & applies to a total 44,700 individuals...well that's deserving of a full & unreserved retraction and apology.
Fully. Those who have quoted the Statistic, that smears Australian Agriculture, must also renounce the claim & apologise. If not then its not unreasonable to regard them as anti Agriculture enablers.
The conclusion that applies to the total number of individuals or 100% (44,700) was derived by interviews derived from 14 individuals which represents 0.03% of the total.
Yeah that's deceptive & if you're aware of it you are possibly an irresponsible fool or a liar or both, maybe something different but it's not helping Agriculture and it's not dealing with facts.
Very dangerous.
Even is the "93%" stat was derived from interviewing 107 individuals it is still too small a sample size to make a claim about 44,700 total. The 107 would represent 0.2%.
Still very dangerous. This is Identity Politics in action. My bet is there will be no retraction or apology, the stat will be used again future. A hierarchy in the "movement" will evolve allowing some to ascend to a lofty position or two whilst women will find it harder to get jobs on farms & men will be smeared unfairly. That's my bet, I'm damn keen to be wrong. Not far away we'll find the Greens &/or Labor party stoking this Identity Politics tactic.
At best, the culprits will use the stat less but still no apology or explanation.
We'll see...
** http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Dec+2012
Below is the link for the entire Thesis.
With that firmly in mind the PhD Candidate has, since the thesis, made the comment, nay repeated it as have others that "93% of women in agriculture have experienced sexual harassment" when it was based on a minimum 14 individuals.
That sort of conclusion is unacceptable & deceptive.
This is hardly a case of research conclusions made cautiously. The author went on to write & sell a book & currently makes income from talk circuit where this claim is used.
I am in favour of anything that reduces or hopefully prevents sexual harassment and sexual assault in ANY workplace or anywhere else. But I cannot support the intellectually corrupt conclusion that paints an extremely horrible picture of the majority of people in Agriculture.
Agriculture is currently under a huge attack on many fronts. Recently Agriculture has been lobbed grenades saying farm dams contributed greatly to global warming along with the other claimed culprit...animal production. Then there's the attack on not just Live Export but farm animal production as well as the use of Glyphosate.
I notice 2 of the people who have been very vocal against Live Export have been journalist Tracey Spicer & WA Ag. minister Alannah McTeirnan. Both of whom were at the #USTOO event where the author of this thesis made the false & misleading comments about Agriculture. Just an aside I'd hope.
The claim, whatever the truth maybe is intellectually corrupt.
I'm in favour of anything that reduces, prevents or eliminates Sexual Harassment & Sexual Assault in but I am not in favour of misleading stats from inconclusive data set that paints many males in Agriculture as sexual predators.
As I cited elsewhere the unintended backlash has begun where two primary producers (of different genders, irrelevant as it is) have said they will no longer hire women because they want incidents to stop & especially if there's risk of litigation to them for failing to provide a safe workplace.
#metoo had some unintended & unfair repercussions, seems #ustoo might too.
In a small regard, its already gone sideways & some of the prominent players haven't even noticed.
Aust Bureau of Statistics says there are currently approximately 44,700 females employed in Agriculture. (**)
If you interview 14 individuals & the answers from 14 people then form a claim that covers & applies to a total 44,700 individuals...well that's deserving of a full & unreserved retraction and apology.
Fully. Those who have quoted the Statistic, that smears Australian Agriculture, must also renounce the claim & apologise. If not then its not unreasonable to regard them as anti Agriculture enablers.
The conclusion that applies to the total number of individuals or 100% (44,700) was derived by interviews derived from 14 individuals which represents 0.03% of the total.
Yeah that's deceptive & if you're aware of it you are possibly an irresponsible fool or a liar or both, maybe something different but it's not helping Agriculture and it's not dealing with facts.
Very dangerous.
Even is the "93%" stat was derived from interviewing 107 individuals it is still too small a sample size to make a claim about 44,700 total. The 107 would represent 0.2%.
Still very dangerous. This is Identity Politics in action. My bet is there will be no retraction or apology, the stat will be used again future. A hierarchy in the "movement" will evolve allowing some to ascend to a lofty position or two whilst women will find it harder to get jobs on farms & men will be smeared unfairly. That's my bet, I'm damn keen to be wrong. Not far away we'll find the Greens &/or Labor party stoking this Identity Politics tactic.
At best, the culprits will use the stat less but still no apology or explanation.
We'll see...
** http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Dec+2012
Below is the link for the entire Thesis.
http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/647dfc77-90a3-4644-b1bb-5b06ae1d86c9/1/full_text.pdf
(This was written early November 2019 in the hope some would come to their senses & it wouldn't need to be published, however...)
(This was written early November 2019 in the hope some would come to their senses & it wouldn't need to be published, however...)
No comments:
Post a Comment