I have to agree with seed. I don't think it's asking for special treatment. Would you grab another guys private parts? Would you sexually assault another man? Would you rape another man? Is this all part of the bonding process? Do you sexually harrass the men you work with? Is all of that normal with men in the military?
To answer your questions truthfully and in order, no, no, no, no, no, and insufficient data; using the definition of sexual harassment as defined by the EEOC as a meter:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physicalhttp://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
conduct of a sexual nature when:
· Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment, or
· Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis
for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
· Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
Unwelcome Behavior is the critical word. Unwelcome does not mean "involuntary."
A victim may consent or agree to certain conduct and actively participate in it even
though it is offensive and objectionable. Therefore, sexual conduct is unwelcome
whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome. Whether the person in
fact welcomed a request for a date, sex-oriented comment, or joke depends on all the
Source: Preventing Sexual Harassment (BNA Communications, Inc.) SDC IP .73
I can truthfully say that I never sexually harassed or assaulted any of my divisionmates. That doesn't mean I haven't said hurtful, heinous things to them, and wrestled with them in a way that would appear sexual in nature to the outside observer. This was typical behavior where I come from; it was expected, and it was welcome. And yes, it was hazing. I can't truthfully say if all men in the military act that way, because I haven't met all the men in the military, and nor do I have data to suggest such a thing.
Further, I fail to see how the concept of rape only applies to women entering combat roles. I am not condoning rape, or sexual assault by any stretch of the imagination. Near as I can tell, the article is not either. But if we intend to treat someone as one of the guys, and that's not something they're up for, it sounds like asking for special treatment to me. Typically such people were ostracised, socially, from the group. Professionally, no one cared; no one got special treatment either way in terms of duty assignments, advancement, and such. But being ignored by one's peers is stigma enough.
That said, I am not interested in what the whole of that article has to say; I was only looking for the data that I quoted. And seeing as 1998 was the first year that women were integrated into combat roles, I don't see 137 as too far off a figure, considering as of 2006 it contains only about 843 active duty women. (That is to say about 64,000 regular personnel, times 12.2 percent consisting of women, times 10.8 percent of those women in combat roles.) Those 137 women in combat roles may have served as Tank operators, pilots, radio operators, special forces engineers, cannon operators, or numerous other roles that may or may not put you in the line of fire without being in the infantry.http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf
And here it is again, with a slight change for the sake of accuracy. And it has a reference.
Of 102 women who enlisted in infantry training, only one graduated.http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm