>Given that, why would we expect feminists to be talking about the effect of sexual assault on males?
Because "feminism fights for men too!" is something we hear all the time.
>It's not their responsibility to do so, and I'm absolutely certain that most feminists would not object to male campaign groups which highlight the problem of male sexual assault.
>men have to deal with the fact that they're more likely to be rasped by another man
Not really.
From a comment below:
One of the studies of the Bureau of Justice data notes that in a certain subset of the data, 46% of the male victims of sexual assault reported a female perpetrator.
54% vs 46% is not much of a difference. And then you have this from the article:
"Women were more likely to be abused by fellow female inmates, and men by guards, and many of those guards were female. For example, of juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member."
If that is truly the case, then why do many feminists believe that every man on the street must be treated as a potential rapist?
Let's be clear - the phrase "many feminists believe" is a weasel phrase worthy of being placed alongside Fox News and their infamous "some people say" thing.
You've demonstrated that one woman is so concerned she's going to be attacked that she assumes every man is a rapist. That's a terrible state of affairs, but not for the reasons you think.
Because it's a passive statement meant to cast aspersions on feminism as a whole by associating the movement with these hypothetical feminists you speak of, while at the same time citing no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement. It's a typical tactic used for demagoguery and yellow journalism, allowing the author (you, in this case) to make an inflammatory statement without having to take credit for originating a ridiculous idea that most of the time can only charitably be considered anything but an outright fabrication.
>citing no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement
>outright fabrication
I provided a link to the source. I recommend you review both it and the hundreds of comments agreeing with it. Most major feminist sites picked up on it at the time as well, and it is also listed as a source on the "geek feminism" wiki.
That's not a source demonstrating that many feminists are afraid of being raped. Its a piece of evidence that a woman fears this, and a lot of women agree with her. By conflating their gender with the feminist movement, you're intentionally conflating the two, and implying that non-feminist women are not afraid of being raped, and further that feminism is itself at the root of their fear.
That's a trigger word that means different things to different people. To me, it means "someone who advocates that women should have social and political equality with men." Under my definition, I'm a feminist, and I'd be a little surprised if you weren't. What does it mean for you?
That's the issue. "Feminist" and "feminism" alone are too vague to convey any meaningful ideological position. One must elaborate what type or school of feminism they adhere to, in order for a conclusion to be made. Even still, in some cases, it's not enough (e.g. TERFs).
Someone who believes something or another about women's rights, and is statistically more likely to dismiss or suppress any discussion of men's issues.
Women have an easier time finding somewhere to stay because they are considered more valuable to society. Men are disposable, which is why far fewer resources are devoted to helping them.
Women also can just get a boyfriend if they lose their job or health and need money; I've seen my female friends do this loads of times, but have yet to see it go the other way. Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
I have upvoted you. It is true that a woman can just "get a boyfriend" -- aka politely whore herself out -- and I have seen it done as a means to get off the street. And it is true that there are generally fewer resources for homeless men. But gender rolls do not "favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters". Nor are women "more valuable" to society.
Men get freedom that women tend to lack. With freedom, there is freedom to fail. Men tend to aggregate towards the extremes -- they both take up more of the CEO roles and are more commonly seen on the street. Women get more "average" lives in part because they have less freedom. Women often are protected from homelessness per se not because anyone values them but because they have custody of and responsibility for dependent children and no one wants to see children on the street. So the parent who has custody gets taken in by family along with the child or services intended to benefit the child also benefit the custodial parent. This is not about valuing women more. It is just not.
I think the reality is that women are more able to scrape by via prostitution.
Gender roles definitely favor women pretty heavily when it comes to financial matters.
Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions. I'm having a hard time reconciling anything in your post with reality.
I think most couples would be pretty offended if you called the girlfriend a prostitute for letting their boyfriend financially support them.
>Every study I've seen shows that women are paid less in than men in equivalent positions.
Women are paid the same as men in studies that control for other variables. I recommend you stop reading "studies" that don't control for things like hours worked and choice of career field.
In fact, single childless women now make more than men in most US metropolitan areas: "Young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively." (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...)
To the second, your linked article cites a study that does not control for hours worked, choice of field, or most importantly being in an equivalent position, which I specified in my comment.
Here's the wiki article on the gender pay gap and a relevant quote:
However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed by some to gender discrimination.
Ummmm no. Maybe, maybe, on a statistical level, this happens more for women than for men. But I certainly know women who have been homeless, and there are even more women who can't get a boyfriend at all, especially if they're sick or unemployed. Women's magazines are full of dating advice for a reason.
Note: To be clear, I do not agree with the OP's characterization of "women being more valuable to society" and thus treated better. In general, men have the advantage. But homelessness does tend to affect men more.
Most homeless are men. A couple sources I found places the number in the mid 60% range.
You say some women can't get a boyfriend at all. I expect it's true for most of them that they can't get a boyfriend they want.
But many of them might be able to get a very disagreeable boyfriend, if their choice was living with him, or living on the street.
It's not a very good choice. In fact, it's generally an awful choice. But it's still a choice.
Obviously, there are homeless women, but they tend to be less vulnerable to homelessness. Orwell wrote about this in down and out in Paris and London. Mind you, this was in the 1920s, but it's evocative:
>Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are
very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among
destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But
it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level
society is entirely male. The following figures, published by the L.C.C.
from a night census taken on February 13th, 1931, will show the relative
numbers of destitute men and destitute women:
Spending the night in the streets, 60 men, 18 women.
In shelters and homes not licensed as common lodging-houses, 1,057 men,
137 women.
In the crypt of St Martin's-in-the-Fields Church, 88 men, 12 women.
In L.C.C. casual wards and hostels, 674 men, 15 women.
[ This must be an underestimate. Still, the proportions probably
hold good.]
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men
outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that
unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman
can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man.
Men are 77% of the homeless population [1]. This doesn't mean that no women are homeless, just that women are much less likely to end up homeless (presumably as a result of the much greater amount of resources dedicated to disadvantaged women compared to disadvantaged men).
I think it goes without saying that a sick or unemployed man is far less likely to find or keep a girlfriend than a sick or unemployed woman.
Well, if you feel envious of women who can sleep with people for money, you may still be able to find men who will accept your services as a prostitute. Since you seem to think it's so cushy.
Yep. I wish my parents and I would have understood that but we didn't. Although I can't say that I'm doing bad. I just think that I would be doing better if I had a 4 year university or even community college degree. Plus I would have saved money vs a 2 year "degree".
I actually moved from the midwest to NYC for exactly that reason. I can't afford the in state public university in my home state, so I had to move here, as ridiculous as that sounds. Luckily, NYC is not nearly as expensive as people make it out to be. I pay about $200/month more in living expenses, but it's $10,000/year cheaper to go to school here and I get free health care through medicaid (important since I have a very painful health condition). I have no family support, so I have to make it work through, well, work and what little money I can get from federal financial aid.
I'm really grateful CCNY still exists to provide me a path out of poverty. However, they're hiking tuition by $800/year for the next few years, so soon it'll be unaffordable, too...
Well, the most you can take out is $5,500 as an 18 year old. They're more than happy to legally deny you any other loans if you don't have the support of a rich family to cosign some private ones for you.
Because "feminism fights for men too!" is something we hear all the time.
>It's not their responsibility to do so, and I'm absolutely certain that most feminists would not object to male campaign groups which highlight the problem of male sexual assault.
You'd definitely be wrong about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow