It's an interesting point, although I think it's worth distinguishing 4 kinds of prejudice: pro- and anti- male and female.
I'm interested in decreasing total prejudice, and also decreasing the substantial imbalance in net prejudice benefit between groups. I don't think prejudice can be eliminated; System 1 thinking is too practically useful.
I think the reason people react negatively to dudes bringing up a possible increase in anti-male prejudice is that that it's usually brought up as an interruption to discussion of anti-female prejudice. That is, it's not used as a serious participation in a broad discussion of prejudice and how to reduce it, but a way of derailing discussion. And as I said, people are inclined to treat a reduction in pro-them prejudice as an increase in anti-them prejudice. So even sincere attempts can come across as ignorant.
Personally, I suspect anti-male prejudice is actually decreasing as we unwind patriarchy. I think it can be more visible, though, as a) women are more willing to be open about anti-male prejudices they have, and b) as we see women moving toward equality, we reexamine our own position. But I'm personally ok even if it's a temporary increase, as I see it as a backlash against the status quo. Honestly, given the number of women I know who have been sexually assaulted or physically abused, I'm amazed there isn't more anti-male prejudice. As we reduce the number of people who have those experiences, I expect we'll see dramatic drops in anti-male prejudice.
>Honestly, given the number of women I know who have been sexually assaulted or physically abused, I'm amazed there isn't more anti-male prejudice.
Would this work for anti-female prejudice if the stats were reversed. For example, once you look past how the CDC picks a specific definition of rape that excludes male victims of female rapists, you find that within a given year, men are raped at almost the same rate as women (if memory serves it was a .2% difference).
So given this, why are anti-male prejudice given an explanation based on male behavior while anti-female prejudices are not given an explanation based on female behavior?
You are claiming that women rape men basically as often as men rape women? I find that literally incredible. If you have stats, by all means post them, but there's a ton of evidence the other way.
As to your question, the short answer is patriarchy. We're slowly emerging from a millennia-long system of male dominance of women. I read a lot of anti-female prejudice as part of that system of control of women. Whereas I read a lot of anti-male prejudice as a) reaction to the experience of patriarchy, b) resistance to the system of patriarchy, or c) part of patriarchy itself. As we eliminate patriarchy and then have a couple of generations of people who haven't experienced it, I expect much of that to fade.
>If you have stats, by all means post them, but there's a ton of evidence the other way.
CDC 2010 NISVS. But you can't look at the summary, because they use a definition of rape that doesn't involve most cases of male victims of female perpetrators. You need to read the stats on male victims of contact sexual assault which aren't in the summary.
I've taken a look, but I can't find what you're talking about. If you'd like to make a case for something that sounds absurd, by all means make it. But some anonymous guy waving vaguely at hundreds of pages of documents and telling me to go fish is definitely not making a case. Note also that just claiming the experts who interpret the data are wrong is not making a case. Extraordinary claims, etc.
>Note also that just claiming the experts who interpret the data are wrong is not making a case.
The experts are making very specific claims based on biased definitions. If we were to use those biased definitions, then their claims are not wrong. The problem is their definitions, and on a deeper level, why they went with such definitions.
>Questions on sexual violence were
asked in relation to rape (completed
forced penetration, attempted
penetration, and alcohol or drugfacilitated
completed penetration),
being made to penetrate another
person, sexual coercion, unwanted
sexual contact, and non-contact
unwanted sexual experiences.
Notice that being made to penetrate is not listed with the group that includes rape?
Page 27 (17) goes into more details and once again clearly lists that being made to penetrate doesn't count as rape.
On page 28 (18) we see the number of victims for women raped within a 12 month period is 1.27 million.
On page 29 (19) we see the number of victims for men made to penetrate (aka raped) within a 12 month period is 1.267 million.
And now we're into the "extraordinary claims" section of the discussion.
Pulling out two numbers from a large report and saying, "aha, proof of the grand conspiracy" is not compelling to me. You're claiming that you personally have discovered a major revolution in understanding the nature and impact sexual violence. But the numbers are weird on their own (1-year and lifetime rates are oddly different, apparently no examination of the gender of user of force, no description of what force was used). You claim that the definitions are biased, but you don't demonstrate it. You imply that the levels of trauma are equivalent, but I don't see a reason to believe that. This doesn't seem congruent with other research. And it also doesn't match what direct knowledge I have of the topic. I know a number of women who have been raped, and it was a deeply traumatic experience for them. I've never heard of a woman similarly forcing a guy to penetrate with, say, knife in hand. I'm having trouble even imagining how such a crime would work.
The reason we take rape seriously is not one number in one box somewhere in one PDF. It's the great array of studies and personal narratives demonstrating the crime and the severity of its impact on people's lives. Now it could be that you have uncovered a vast new area of crime that people were somehow unaware of. Or it could be that, as happens all the time in research, a couple of numbers came out odd because they made a mistake, or because subtle implications of study design produced unexpectedly misleading results.
If it's the former, presumably we'd see other evidence besides a couple of odd numbers. After all, this report has been out for years and there's been plenty of time for followup research. Plenty of time for people to come forward with stories of how this crime ruined their lives. Are we seeing that?
If not, then maybe the explanation here is not, "OMG CONSPIRASY AGAINT THE MENZ!" but "anonymous guy on the Internet does not understand a topic as well as a (mixed-gender) array of doctors who have spent years in the field".
I'm interested in decreasing total prejudice, and also decreasing the substantial imbalance in net prejudice benefit between groups. I don't think prejudice can be eliminated; System 1 thinking is too practically useful.
I think the reason people react negatively to dudes bringing up a possible increase in anti-male prejudice is that that it's usually brought up as an interruption to discussion of anti-female prejudice. That is, it's not used as a serious participation in a broad discussion of prejudice and how to reduce it, but a way of derailing discussion. And as I said, people are inclined to treat a reduction in pro-them prejudice as an increase in anti-them prejudice. So even sincere attempts can come across as ignorant.
Personally, I suspect anti-male prejudice is actually decreasing as we unwind patriarchy. I think it can be more visible, though, as a) women are more willing to be open about anti-male prejudices they have, and b) as we see women moving toward equality, we reexamine our own position. But I'm personally ok even if it's a temporary increase, as I see it as a backlash against the status quo. Honestly, given the number of women I know who have been sexually assaulted or physically abused, I'm amazed there isn't more anti-male prejudice. As we reduce the number of people who have those experiences, I expect we'll see dramatic drops in anti-male prejudice.