The CDC's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which looked at society at large and excluded the prison population, found that 1.1% of women and 1.1% or men surveyed were raped in the prior 12 months.
98% of women who had been raped identified a man as their attacker and 80% of the men who had been raped identified a woman as their attacker. This works out to men being 60% of rapists and women being 40% of rapists.
Here is an analysis with all the calculations laid out and tied back to the data tables in the NISVS report: http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victim...
Here is a link to the data tables with the relevant figures circled: http://imgur.com/a/aw0eU
Now, the NISVS's executive summary does not tell this story. It tells the usual story of rape being something men overwhelmingly to do women. The way it does that is by defining rape to be 'being penetrated against your will', excluding 'being made to penetrate', which is what a female rapist would do to a man.
Nevertheless, the study does track how many men were made to penetrate (which it categorizes as 'other, sexual assault'), so it is possible to correct the definition of rape to one that doesn't erase female on male rape ('made to have sex against your will'), and when you do, rape ceases to be a gendered crime.
So yes, I can imagine what it would be like for men to be raped as often as women are. Now, can you imagine what it would be like if female rape victims, like male rape victims, were defined out of existence, and offered no recognition, or help?
Statistics have very little meaning without context.
From your first link:
>Men are the vast majority of rapists and women are the vast majority of victims because rape was defined in such a way to make sure that this was so.
Exactly. This is so because the context is that we live in a patriarchal society where it is much easier for men to use their power and dominance to take advantage of women.
You see, that's what rape is about: dominance. It doesn't have anything to do about penises or vaginas or anuses. When Person A rapes Person B it is because they want to establish their dominance on Person B. Men are disproportionately classified as rapists because they are exploiting their already dominant status in society at great harm to the other person. And if we were living in a matriarchal society, it would be the exact opposite.
I agree that the narrative of men being strong serves the interests of the men at the top of the power structure, but that is a tiny percentage of all men.
The average man has no more power than the average woman.
I'm not claiming that for the statistic for the US at large is 100% representative of the tech community. But unless you have a good reason to believe it to be different, it seems like a reasonable starting point.
To be honest I really despise this mobbing attitude that seems to surface here. Somebody has been wronged, so now people on the internet have to be hated that have no connection to the event whatsoever. Just because I didn't join the chorus of "it's all the fault of sexism"?
Edit: also, with respect to the 1 in 4 number, have studies about what men experience even been conducted? Since most of those rapes occur for young people, a lot of men could be affected, too (raped as kids). Also men appear to be much more likely to become victim of violence than women, from what I have found so far.
Bringing up this hypothetical is a distraction/derailment tactic used by what I will call 'agents of the patriarchy,' un-wittingly or no. So when you say it, just understand why feminists get annoyed…
I assume you are not aware of it, but it seems very twisted to ask for some aspect and then condemn the mentioning of said aspect.
Also how is the story here relevant to systemic harassment of women by "our" community - how common is it that a women in the community gets flooded with fake nude photographs, and how is that the communities doing (except for providing an online forum)?
With respect to the 1 in 4 figure, surely you are aware that most rapes occur in relationships (relatives, spouses, acquaintances)?
Also I only researched that figure of violence against men yesterday, but for Germany. In the German police crime statistics severe violence against men is much more frequent than severe violence and rape against women. So there is at least one data point.
It's irrelevant. If you do sexist things, you are a sexist. Maybe you don't know you're a sexist, but you are.
> Sexism definition: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
I'm not arguing that this isn't a terrible, unwarranted attack; I'm arguing against the dilution of the term. Not every attack against a person of another race is racist and not every attack against a women is sexist.
Where is the "basis on sex" in this story (genuine question, i.e. did her gender motivate the attack)? Without this, you can call it many things but not sexist.
Also, note that that definition is not the one that most people who care about this topic use. That would be 'sexual discrimination.' Sexism is a systemic cultural force of sexual discrimination. That said, it's not particularly relevant to what I'm saying either, but I thought I'd mention it.
The type of attack (porn) seems gender-specific to me.
And it's plausible to me that the "same old face" critique is more prevalent with women speakers than with men. How many talks does a man have to give, on average, to get that response, vs. OP's total of three?
If I wanted to harass a female, I would probably choose sexual shaming as a weapon, because it is obviously one of the most effective weapons available to me, because society is sexist. I would be morally reprehensible for choosing to harass someone, but my motivation for harassing her would not necessarily be sexist. Perhaps she ran over my cat, I believe she did it on purpose and want to punish her. The attack would work because our culture is rife with sexism. The attack was chosen because I'm angry with her for killing my cat: not because I'm sexist.
Maybe this is a better way of putting it: Person A and Person B exist. One of the two means to be sexist, and one does not. They both go around and do the exact same things.
What is the difference between A and B, as far as women or our community are concerned? There effectively isn't any. Now, maybe Person not-sexist is more likely to come to understand how their actions are harming people, and be reformed, but before that point, their intent doesn't mean a damn: they're still hurting others.
Which do you think helps remove the behavior in our society: "that sounded racist, is that really what you meant?" or "you're a racist. I can't believe you said that." One of them gives the person an opportunity to evaluate what they said and how they want to be perceived by others, the other immediately puts them on the defensive and marks you and your cause an enemy to their person.
> the consensus is that you address behavior and not identity because attacking identity accomplishes nothing positive.
Right! Which is why I care what someone does, not what they say or what they mean. Address the behavior. I'm glad we agree on this.
If you want blatant sexism, FTA: "no offence, I just don’t relate to girls speaking about the industry at all, I learn better from guys". That's sexism.
It's not denial if you don't know the motivation. Why is it so important to label these actions a certain way when we can just call it as it clearly is?
Trying to label everything that may or may not be sexism doesn't help the cause. Most of us know there is rampant sexism. Arguing about this just detracts from the real problem. There are more than enough obvious instances to demonstrate the problem.
EDIT: for the 2 down-voters so far: the point I'm making is that sexism is a major problem but trying to ascribe motivation to something with uncertainty is intellectual dishonesty that does nothing but detract from the real problem.