So, I flipped out at Courtney about her last post; some of you may remember me from when I flipped out at her and Samhita on the post about military women and PTSD treatment. I may have gotten more angry than I needed to, and I'd like to prevent that from happening again: I'm going to explain the structures and programs the military has in place to prevent and respond to sexual assault, harassment, sexism, and misogyny. My focus will be the Air Force, since that's the branch I've served for the past five years, but much of this crosses the services, or is administered at the Defense Department level. Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard ladies in the audience, correct me if what I say doesn't apply to your service.
As a disclaimer, I do not want anyone to think that there is not a problem with assault, harassment, and sexism in the military. It is a huge problem, just as it is everywhere else in the country and the world. But unlike the country and the world, the military has huge amounts of manpower, money and time dedicated to eradicating the problems it knows it has. Contrast this with the attitude and behavior of universities or private companies: there is no comparison.
Okay, first: SARC. SARC stands for Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. There is one on every Air Force Base, and I believe on every Army post (Marines/Navy/CG, help me out here). They're on call 24 hours a day/7 days a week to respond to assaults. Many (if not all?) are also SANEs, which stands for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner. A SANE does the rape kit and the exam. Many of the SARC/SANEs are nurses; most if not all are female; often they are mental health nurses (the one in my unit is). SARCs are also usually responsible for coordinating the prevention program on their installation, which means giving classes, talks, taking surveys, consulting with command, recommending changes to whatever, etc. etc. Our SARC's only job as a full-time officer is to prevent and respond to assault. Last I knew she was a Captain but she may have been promoted.
Annual training is usually excellent. We get separate briefings on all sorts of discimination, be it sexual, religious, racial, ethnic--you name it, we cover it. A lot of it is covered by MEO, or the Military Equal Opportunity people. There are MEO offices I think on each installation, and I know it's cross service. MEO handles things mostly from the discrimination viewpoint: it's illegal and/or against policy to discriminate based on x, y, and z, and this often includes harassment. Interestingly, MEO sometimes includes perceived sexual orientation in their list of things-you're-not-allowed to discriminate based upon, because under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, a perceived (but unsubstantiated) orientation is not to be pursued nor harassed for. Discrimination, why it's bad, how it happens, what to do if it happens, how to go above your command's head if necessary, and other issues are the subject of these briefings, and they are typically annual. The MEO office is also open year round and they investigate allegations of violations of the military's policies vis-a-vis discrimination, as well as of poor command cultures that encourage discrimination. MEO often covers harassment since that is often classified as discrimination, though SARCs usually do as well, since it sometimes blurs into assault.
DEOMI is like the mothership for MEO: it stands for Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. They're based in Florida, at Patrick AFB, and they do research, surveys, and run programs. They do all the various Heritage month programming, including stuff commemorating military women. Their website is here. When I was writing my thesis, I got a lot of survey data from their publications, which, let me tell you, are hella hard to find via civilian libraries since they are primarily for military use.
The training we get that's specific to assault is, quite frankly, the best I have ever seen or heard of. Here is an article about it; it came out in 2005. Here is an article about the library of videos the DOD maintains. The Air Force video I saw was spectacular: it brought it this guy who studies, as I recall, mob behavior? At UMASS? Currently all I can find is that it incorporates bystander training, e.g., training people that being a bystander to assault is reprehensible, and one should step in when a situation becomes suspicious. They link to UNH's Prevention Innovations's program. I distinctly remember the methodical debunking of several billions myths: about drinking and consent, about it being rape even if she doesn't actually articulate the word no, that many rapists don't understand themselves as rapists, that date rape is excruciatingly common, that most victims know their rapists, that rapists guilt women into believing the rape was their fault, debunking the stranger in a ski mask fallacy, the "prevention is a woman's reponsibility" myth (e.g.: don't wear mini skirts! Don't drink! Don't go out! etc et fucking cetera). Anyway, just read the first article I linked in this paragraph, it gives a good summary. I wish I could link to the video itself but I can't find a copy online. One more thing: the video was filled with top brass who rearticulated the main points all the researchers and advocates said, and with the utmost firmness, condemned all exploitation, assault and harassment of women in ways that presaged the tack the Army and Marines are taking. They are formulating their anti-assault message as one of brother/sisterhood: how could you harm one of your siblings in arms? At a time when we are fighting a war, how could you? The Air Force (Army, Marines, Navy, etc) simply will not stand for that morale-destroying, readiness-killing bullshit, and you will cut it the fuck out before we cut you. Basically. In so many words.
Oh my god that was a massive paragraph.
Here's another link, on the DOD-wide SAPR program, which is Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. They have about one thousand resources on their site, including, on the left menu, the DOD annual report. This report is, as you can see, annual, and is presented to Congress. Some members of Congress to not fuck around on these issues and make a point to demand more and better progress, as they should. Some may be members/former members of DACOWITS, which is...
the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. As I understand it, DACOWITS does not have as much power or clout as it did in the 80s and early 90s when integration was still new and happening. My father recalls flying with the DACOWITS investigative team looking to recommend whether or not to put women in combat aircraft (this would have been between 87 and 89, when he was flying B-52s). He was not impressed with some, and very impressed with others. DACOWITS is hated and reviled by anti-women-in-the-military people, since they were the (apparent) driving force behind a lot of integration.
Related but slightly more esoteric is the DWHRP, or Defence Women's Health Research Program, which was basically an asston of money handed out to study the various and sundry health concerns of military women. A lot of this focused on physical abilities, like running and conditioning, but also on the effects estrogen may have on altitude sickness, or G-force tolerance, as well as birth defects from military environmental agents, sexually transmitted infection rates and risk factors, and sexual assault and PTSD in military women. The DWHRP site is here. I wrote an independant study paper on some of the studies funded by DWHRP, and there is some sketchy sexism in medical research, believe you me. There is also some awesome: two of my favorites on how to train women to kick ass and take names (well, to be really strong) are this one and this one; that second one includes the entire program, so if you want to become super strong and rad, check it out.
What else? Hmm, there's the climate surveys; DEOMI does one that I think is DOD-wide but I'm not sure who gets it. The AF does a climate survey every year, and while it's anonymous and voluntary, Commanders basically get graded on what percent of their troops take it. THEN they get graded on the climate their troops describe--the climate survey covers everything from recognition for jobs well done, senior/junior enlisted communication and relations, sexual assault/harassment, command attitude TOWARD assault and harassment, racial, ethnic and religious discrimination, and... jeez, I dunno, everything. They are incredibly long. I take one every year. Then when the results come back, Commanders act on the results; mine discusses the results, posts them, and comes up with plans to fix problems identified in the survey.
Some other random vignettes: when I played rugby in college, I came to the PT test wearing not only my ugly PT uniform, but a large number of large bruises all over from preseason training. I was pleased, though a little impatient, when four or five of the men in my unit took me aside and checked in to make sure I wasn't being abused at home; they offered their support and help in getting resources or away. They were all relieved and delighted to learn I wasn't being hurt, well, not in nonconsenual ways, and then we talked about shooting the boot and rugby songs a lot.
Other tidbits: Plan B was recently taken off (well, it was before I deployed; it might be back on, esp. with Obama as CIC) the list of required medications for every pharmacy to carry. But when I was deployed our pharmacy stocked it, and as with all Rxs while on Active Duty, it was free for the asking. Tricare does not cover abortions at all, however; I think this may have to do with the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding for abortions. That's why medicaid coverage varies by state; Tricare and the VA are federal systems. Fun fact: when you had to be discharged when you had a baby, in the bad old days of the 70s and 80s, abortions were performed on base by military doctors. Not so any more.
Okay, so that's some TL;DR right there. Any questions? Comments? Corrections from my sisters (or brothers; Hi, Marc!) in the other services?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What the military is actually doing to prevent assault and harassment.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16268
Augh! How do I edit this? I didn't close one of my links!
Fixed!
Oh my god, thank you. That was bothering me SO MUCH!
One of the primary points I got from Courtney's post, was the military's apparent total inability to communicate about the programs in place to address sexual assault.
technathene - I don't want to discount your experiences. But if things are as good as you describe on a large scale, I have to wonder why officers are unable to communicate about that. Courtney's dealing with members of the military who have been put in contact with the media after plenty of advanced warning. Why can't they talk intelligently about the measure taken to integrate, protect, and support female troops?
I'm not sure why they weren't able to communicate about the programs to Courtney--that frankly baffles me. But the information is all out there, on the internet. And since every member is required to get these briefings annually or biannually, everyone should know at least the basics, as you can see from the comments of military women on Courtney's post.
One thing to remember is that these programs have been created by military people (or contractors) after research on military people to be administered to military people by military people. None of it is intended for a civilian audience, though I think everyone would benefit from the training we get. So it is going to require a little effort for an outsider to get a handle on how the systems work. Or finding a knowledgeable military person, like a SARC, or apparently me
Also, I want to say again that things aren't "good": there is a serious problem with harassment and assault in the military, just as there is in the US and world as whole. But the military has huge, expensive, well-manned programs in place and that have been for the last two decades (getting better as time goes on) which you can't say for any other organization on earth. So I don't want to imply that everything is peachy keen and I can walk naked through Baghdad without fear, but I think the SARCs and the SAPR program and the makers of all these videos and the briefers of 10,000 briefings deserve the credit they're due, and that information on the military should be presently accurately and completely.
True, "good" wasn't really the right word, but the systems in place are distinctly better than I had thought.
In theory, that is very good to hear. Better than any organization I can name.
What are your comments on AFOSI (Air Force Office of Special Investigations), "The World's Best Investigative Agency in the World's Best Air and Space Force"?
"The vast majority of AFOSI's investigative activities pertain to felony crimes including murder, robbery, rape, assault, major burglaries, drug use and trafficking, sex offenses, arson, compromise of Air Force test materials, black market activities, and other criminal activities."
http://www.osi.andrews.af.mil/
http://www.osi.andrews.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4848
Um, what? Do I have comments on OSI? I have no idea what (or why) you're asking.
You are trying to tell us how far the military is going to prevent or investigate sexual assault and harassment. I am agreeing with you that in theory "The training we get that's specific to assault is, quite frankly, the best I have ever seen or heard of."
Now contrast this to what women actually experience or report in the military.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html
Basically, "2,280 cases [9% more than previous year] in which a victim provided full accounts and physical evidence when possible, and 643 in which a victim sought care or made a report but refused to provide all the information necessary to pursue an investigation,"
but
"The most recent figures, which include cases left open from previous years, show that only 317 cases were referred for courts-martial, or military trials. Another 247 were referred for nonjudicial punishment."
That's less than 10.8% of REPORTED cases going to courts martial or trial. That's less than 8.5% referred for nonjudicial punishment.
Also, the Pentagon estimates that only 10-20% of rapes are reported. Contrary to what they claim, that is not comparable to civilian standard, which is 40%, according to the Bureau of Justice. By their own estimate, that means only 1-2% of military rapes even go to trial. In the civilian world, there is a 50.8% chance of arrest; of arrests, there is an 80% chance of prosecution, with a 58% chance of conviction at trial.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
What am I asking you about OSI, "The World's Best Investigative Agency in the World's Best Air and Space Force"?
They report their job is "The vast majority of AFOSI's investigative activities pertain to felony crimes including murder, robbery, rape, assault, major burglaries, drug use and trafficking, sex offenses, arson, compromise of Air Force test materials, black market activities, and other criminal activities."
I asked you for your comment on AFOSI.
Why? Because AFOSI is AFAIK, the most commonly cited source, with the highest reported rate of false accusations of rape. The Kanin study is cited more frequently, with a lower rate. There are reports with higher rates, that are not commonly cited.
I have explained in another thread the problems I see with studies like the AFOSI study, most glaringly, that recant (their explicit gold standard), nor unwillingness to undergo a polygraph (another standard), does not equal false claim of rape. Also, the sample size was only a few hundred, and the study is dated.
So the military has measures in place in theory, to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment. What happens to women who report assault? How satisfied are they by their treatment within the system or the outcome? How does that compare to their civilian counterparts? Those kind of reports are more meaningful. The Pentagon's own report is not encouraging.
You'll note that the title of this post was what the military is diong to prevent sexual assault and harassment; I have far less experience with response as I personnally have not been assaulted and nor have any of my military woman confidants. My only interaction with OSI has been to register my overseas vacations, so basically I have no personal comment.
I clicked the RAINN link, and they note that factoring in unreported rapes and all the percentages you name, only 6% of rapists ever spend a day in jail. Contrast that with your figures, 8.5% referred for non-judicial punishment (fines, confinement to quarters, extra duty, etc) and 10% to trial. Using the conviction/jail %s from the civilian side, that's about 2.5% spending time in jail. I don't think that's a valid extrapolation, however, since the case isn't going to go to court martial without substantive evidence/the rapist is an ass who demands a courts-martial.
So, in sum, at LEAST 12.5% of rapists get punished in the military, compared to 6% outside, which is, as you'll note, DOUBLE. I'd say it's more like 15% but I don't have the conviction rates on hand for courts-martial. So, exactly what are you trying to say about OSI?
And I'd like to reiterate that I'm trying to make a point about the military's prevention programs--that there's a substantive effort to prevent, in contrast to everywhere else in the world. I'd accuse you of trying to derail, but honestly I'm still not sure what you want me to say. Do you want me to defend/condemn OSI? I can't; the statistics you provided seem to indicate they're doing better than the civilian world, on balance, and I have no personal experience with them. My post was about my experiences with the prevention programs, which as I've said, are great.
"So, in sum, at LEAST 12.5% of rapists get punished in the military, compared to 6% outside, which is, as you'll note, DOUBLE. I'd say it's more like 15% but I don't have the conviction rates on hand for courts-martial. So, exactly what are you trying to say about OSI?"
Your take of 6% of rapists being "punished" extrapolation would only be true if jail time were the ONLY penalty for rape. Jail time is not the only penalty for a rape conviction at trial. Also, people make plea agreements without going to trial. There are also civil suits. There are also private negotiations, which could be considered "non judicial" in the civilian world. Thus, more than the estimated 6% of total rapists in the civilian world are "punished."
What am I trying to say about OSI? You said it yourself.
"1,074 subjects were involved in cases that were unsubstantiated or unfounded, lacked sufficient evidence, involved a victim that recanted, or involved a subject or victim who died."
Civilian authorities are criticized for their low rates of prosecution and conviction. The same holds true for OSI. Only 1-2% of estimated total rapes in the military go to trial, compared to 16.2% in the civilian world. When civilian authorities call reports or claims of rape "unsubstantiated" or "unfounded," they are criticized.
Perhaps you should read what AFOSI and self proclaimed former investigators have to say about "false" accusation of rape in the military, if you have "no comment" about them. You deserve to know, if for no other reason than to know what can happen to women who report assault within the military.
"But frankly, despite my respect for RAINN, I am skeptical of a 40% report rate to the police."
I am skeptical that service personnel are as likely to report an assault by a comrade or possible superior within their closed environment, as in the civilian world, as the Pentagon claims.
Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is what people self report to the Bureau of Justice, anonymously, which makes it more likely they will report what they did not or could not to authorities. Unlike many other studies, its subjects are many (approx 135,300), and nationally representative. It's up to date and updated, NOT a study of a few hundred non-random people in a school or community years and decades ago, probably in a one time study, like numerous other studies on rape, sexual assault, or "false report" and extrapolated to the rest of the country.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#ncvs
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is one of the standards of criminal statistics in the US, and is the source when various individuals and organizations claim a quarter of a million sexual assaults a year in the US, or one every two minutes, as well as a host of other statistics.
Okay, whoops. Misread your post. But I went to the DOD report, which is a pdf here. Note on pages 35-36 that no action was taken on 1,339 cases out of 2,171 completed cases because:
- 136 offenders were civilians/foreign nationals, so the case was transferred to the agency with authority
- 129 offenders could not be found/identified
- 1,074 subjects were involved in cases that were unsubstantiated or unfounded, lacked sufficient evidence, involved a victim that recanted, or involved a subject or victim who died.
But 832 of 2171 were punished, which is 38% of the offenders. If you take the RAINN stats, only 23% (.5*.8*.58) of the reported civilian cases result in convictions. So while the reporting rates may differ, once they're reported, the military is 15 points better at punishing offenders.
Of those who were punished, 317 went to courts-martial (or 38%), 247 were given nonjudicial punishments (or 30%), and 268 were given administrative actions and discharges (or 32%).
So, given that the Pentagon's estimate of reporting is 10-20%, that would make 4% punished in the former case and 8% punished in the latter. Which is comparable to the 6% punished on the civilian side. But frankly, despite my respect for RAINN, I am skeptical of a 40% report rate to the police. But that's beside the point, I guess.
Anyway, I didn't want to be dragged into a discussion of response. I wanted to discuss prevention.
Oh, and this is all DOD-wide, not AF specific.
What I find to be amazing is for those who advance an argument that the government is too big, too corrupt, or too unnecessarily complex somehow never extend these judgments to the military. Based on the preventative measures within the sprawling existing framework, this all seems so massive, really.
I'm glad that the military is actually taking such things seriously, but matters like Tailhook and other smaller incidents keep coming to my mind.
"What I find to be amazing is for those who advance an argument that the government is too big, too corrupt, or too unnecessarily complex somehow never extend these judgments to the military."
Despite all its shortcomings, there are valid reasons for having a government funded, government controlled standing military, if one's goal is to project the power the United States does or protect its interests. Please name a private enterprise able to replace any branch of the US military. Please name a company willing to pay a force of 1.5 million during decades of peacetime the way the US military does, or to provide benefits after 20 years of service. Please name a company willing to spend trillions to keep "unused" equipment up to date during peacetime. Name a company you would trust with the power of the US military, that would also willingly hand over authority to the President or Congress, even if that President's name were Bush or Reagan.
Tailhook--the incident, not the annual party--was in 1991 (which, for context, was when the newest enlistees were born). It was one of the incidents that spurred the creation of a lot of the programs I described in this post. The Aberdeen Proving Ground scandal was 1996. There is still a lot of shit going down, but by most metrics (all of those that I've been able to find), assault and harassment rates have dropped, sometimes and in some services substantially (the Marines' harassment rates have gone from 60% in 2000 or so to 30% in 2005).
As to how massive it is: the military has about 1.5 million personnel. That's about 1.3 million men and 200,000 women, going off of a 11-13% female force. Given that about 1 in 4 or 5 women and by some estimates more are raped in their lives, most between the ages of 18 and 25, prime military ages, that's about 40,000 raped women. So I've got to say: the effort is worth it. If you consider that half the population of the US is women, and about a fourth or fifth of them have been raped (1/5 of 1/2 of 300 million), that's 30 million raped women. Now: is the military's effort too big, or is our national effort woefully and embarrassingly small?
"is the military's effort too big, or is our national effort woefully and embarrassingly small?"
I'm pretty sure the correct answer is both are insufficient. Are you asking if the military should do less in prevention?
RAINN reports reporting of sexual assault is up 1/3, yet "Sexual assault has fallen by more than 60% in recent years." Women going to authorities are up, but estimated total (including unreported) incidents are down since the 1990s.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault
Marines reported a 50% decrease in harassment, with only 30% reporting harassment. I want it to be true. What is the military's improvement in reducing estimated total number of sexual assaults?
After seeing how much you flipped out on Courtney and Samhita, I refrained from responding to your post yesterday when I read this. But it's been upsetting me so much for the past day that I'm willing to take it.
First off, I'll give you a little background so that you don't automatically discount any credibility I have to speak on this subject. I'm a sergeant in the Army, and an OEF vet. I've spent more of my enlistment on operational missions than I have in garrison, and a year overseas. I'm scheduled for another year-long deployment next year. I've been attached to all kinds of units at different levels of operation and have spent a lot of time stationed with Air Force and Marines. I've actually spent the better part of the year (9 months) on an Air Force base.
Like you said in your response to Samhita, all of the military's branches are very distinct. While I agree with you that some of our sexual assault prevention and response policies are implemented DOD-wide, that doesn't mean they are actually executed equally in each different branch.
I'm really happy for you that you have had such a positive experience with the Air Force and their prevention of sexual assault. My best friend, a female, is in the Air Force and I have been really impressed with the way they handle sexual harassment and assault, and the preventative measures they take.
I can't say I've had the same experience in the Army. The culture of the Army is very different than that of the Air Force; it is a much older institution, much more traditional, and more male-dominated and male-oriented. A lot of the Army's current leaders were around for the time when women had a nearly nonexistent presence in the military. The entire focus of the Army is on our combat ground troops - infantry, armor, field artillery, air defense artillery, snipers, special forces - all of these jobs are those women that women are not allowed to officially hold. Of course, women are constantly engaged in combat in the GWOT, no matter their job. However, women in the Army are only allowed to officially serve in a "support" capacity to the male ground units.
I've unfortunately had to deal with a couple of sexual assault incidences, from the lesser evil of having my ass grabbed in formation to the ultimate evil of being raped by my noncommissioned officer in charge. I've had drill sergeants, NCOICs, staff and commanding officers from 1LT to Lt. Col. tell me that this is how life is for females in the army, that I needed to "grow a thick skin", "toughen up" and "get used to it". I've been ostracized by both male and female peers for reporting such things. I've been told my females with similar experiences that its "easier" just to ignore it and not try to do anything about it. But I can't do that. After I was raped, I knew the Army wouldn't do anything about it or believe me, and it would only make things worse for me. So I went to the civilian ER and reported it to the civilian police and he was arrested. I knew the Army couldn't ignore this, though they tried valiantly to hide it.
The rape happened just a couple of days before I deployed; my rapist and NCOIC was arrested the night before we deployed. I still deployed. Our batallion commander, a Lt Col, told me after I left that he was giving my rapist an Administrative Discharge, which would be Honorable. Obviously, I was enraged - this man was full time Honor Guard (the soldiers who carry caskets of KIA and fold flags at veteran's funerals) and he was an noncommissioned officer leading troops, and he was going to be rewarded for raping me, a soldier he was responsible for?! While I was spending a year on the other side of the world, alone and hated by my entire unit for getting their friend arrested? My BN CO said he couldn't do anything else - which really meant he didn't want to tell anyone higher up that could.
So I did - I went to a few colonels, a few generals, the state inspector general, and the sexual assault response coordinator helped out a lot too. Even when they supported me, my commander and home and my commander while deployed continued to tell me not to get involved, threatened me with punishment, claimed that I was just trying to seek attention and make them look bad, and would order me (unlawfully) not to submit a sworn statement or contact the prosecutors. I knew my rights and ignored their threats, but there was a lot of times when the fight got so hard I thought of giving it up, and times when I knew I was making a choice between a more successful career or fighting this. I know a lot of young women do stop fighting in order to preserve their career, their reputation and their mental health.
My rapist ended up getting an "Other than Honorable" discharge, which is bad, but obviously not Dishonorable. After I returned from deployment, I asked my unit to transfer me immediately to a new unit; I told them that working with them was unnecessarily traumatic for me. They dragged their feet on this for 7 months, even though it only takes a matter of weeks to do this. A couple of times I refused to go to certain unit functions that would mean I would have to be with certain individuals from my deployment. My commander told me he would mark me AWOL and give me a Dishonorable Discharge. I said, "OH REALLY, SIR?! Dishonorable?! I told you 7 months ago to get me out of this unit, and you're going to give ME a Dishonorable for missing a damn ceremony, after trying to give the man who RAPED ME an Honorable Discharge?!" Needless to say, he didn't do it, and I was finally transferred out of the unit after pretty much destroying my professional reputation and hindering any near-future career progression.
While your experience is completely valid, I think it is incorrect to present it as a complete picture of how sexual assault is handled military-wide. From my experience, it has been completely different depending on what kind of unit I am in. Sexual assault is still a huge problem in the military, and it also is in the civilian world.
I'm really upset that you are promoting the idea that sexual assault is a non-issue in the military, and implying that your positive experience is how it is for every woman in the military. In truth, like Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) says, a woman in the U.S. military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than she is to be killed in Iraq. There are SO many women with experiences like mine, and worse, that need the awareness of others who can influence this problem.