Feminist Activism and Ambivalent Sexism’s Relation with Sexual Harassment Myths Regarding Women for Cadets in a Military College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) maintains a very masculine culture and has frequented the news headlines as accounts of sexual harassment and misconduct come to light. Sexist attitudes are apparent at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC). Although research has examined the correlates of sexual harassment myths regarding women to identify the most efficacious variables to target for training purposes, it has not yet been examined whether those correlates differ for men and women in a stereotypical masculine environment such as the military. Women form an integral part of addressing harassment and changing the military culture. Given the unique masculine culture of the CAF, this study aimed to examine which factors best explain variance in sexual harassment myths regarding women. A survey was administered to a sample of officer cadets at RMC (n = 80 men and n = 61 women) to examine whether ambivalent sexism and engagement in feminist activism contributed unique variance in sexual harassment myths in self-identified men and women cadets. Results revealed that, as hypothesized, hostile sexism explained unique variance in harassment myths regarding women in the sample of men, while for women, benevolent sexism explained unique variance in the same variable. For women, engaging in feminist activities was also found to explain unique variance in sexual harassment myths. Our findings suggest that differential links between attitudinal and behavioral indices and sexual harassment myths in officer cadets of both genders may suggest different approaches to dealing with sexual harassment myths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".