More men are raped as well, both as children and as adults if you count prisons, which as a society we generally don't and that in and of itself is informative.
How so? Is it false? I know I've heard similar things before - more men raped each year, counting prison, than women in the US - and considering the state of our prisons it feels reasonable.
This stat is skewed twice: first, by the larger percentage of men involved in bilateral violent altercations (barfights, gang violence, etc), and second, by the low reporting rates of domestic violence (women are more likely to be the victims, though there are male victims of domestic violence as well).
That doesn't help much from age 25-54 or 65+. Assuming beginning work at 16 and retirement at 65, the man is likely to have the advantage in an arbitrary year of one's working life. The aggregate numbers shift the other way because population growth puts more people in the younger cohorts.
> more men are homeless
Granted.
> more men commit suicide
Granted.
> fewer men go to college
I'm not sure this stat is representative, but I don't feel like doing any more research so I will grant this one.
Your examples seem a bit cherry picked to me. More men are victims of violent crime are in part because men are more likely to have valuables, in part because more men commit violent crime, in general because men are more violent than women. Painting that as demonstrating that men are the victims seems pretty funny to me.
The only inequality left is for the 90% of men who are relegated to lives of farm animals in most Western societies.
Every study that still claims that women have it worse make so many statistical and logical fallacies, they aren't even worth debating. Which is ironic, since feminists refuse to debate or acknowledge them anyway, and instead resort to shaming.
* Wage gap. We all know the reasons. Majoring in whatever you're 'passionate' about is a luxury that apparently only women enjoy in our society. There are no artificial barriers to entry for women in any fields, and instead, as we see in Scandinavia, the more artificial equality used to push women into higher paid and rigorous fields, the less they choose them. And why would they - if I were subsidized to earn as much as the average HN reader regardless of my job, I wouldn't be slinging code all day. Look at the percentage of women in computer science in India vs Sweden, for example.
* Women less represented in the top 0.1% as CEOs, senators, etc: For the 99.9% of men who aren't amongst these elites either, it is irrelevant. I might as well complain about the near zero men who are represented at the top of the super-modeling industry.
* Disproportionate work spent on child rearing: That's a choice women make, and men have no say, as enforced by the state. As men, we have no rights, only the responsibility to pay for children, both individually and societally.
You're looking at "labor force participation rate" instead of "unemployment rate". The difference is that people who aren't looking for work are "not participating" but not "unemployed".
where the unemployment rates are given: 4.8% for women and 4.9% for men. In a strong economy like we have now, the difference is minor, but in economic down times, the difference is striking. In 2010, the unemployment rates were was 11% for men and 8.4% for women:
> The difference is that people who aren't looking for work are "not participating" but not "unemployed".
If you're a stay-at-home parent then you would fall under the "not participating" category, no? I think that's part of the problem for women in that they are often pressured to raise a family and forego a career.
> If you're a stay-at-home parent then you would fall under the "not participating" category, no?
If you are so by preference, yes. If you are a stay at home parent because you can't, despite actively looking, find work that pays enough to be to be a net gain after daycare, you are unemployed.
You're right, cultural norms work both ways. Work needs to be done on both sides so that both genders are free to choose what they do with their lives.
No, that's just unrelated to the definition of unemployed. Participation = (employed + unemployed) / total people in working age. If someone is not looking for work, then they are not considered unemployed.
Though you might argue even with equal unemployment ratios, this brings the number of unemployed men higher than the number of women.
You're not classed as unemployed if you're a stay-at-home mother. Likely some of those do so because of social norms, not because they don't want a career.
In this case, because context and presentation is important, and I don't do as good of a job of it. It presents a cohesive whole, whereas me simply saying "More women attempt suicide than men, but men choose more violent methods that are more likely to result in death." removes a single point of your post, but not the overall worldview presented in your post.
Have you looked at the percentage of women who have experienced sexual harassment or assault in their life?
Do you understand what it is like to be a woman, to have to look over your shoulder so much of the time, the fear and anxiety that follows you or prevents you from walking alone at night or in a strange place?
How many women have you talked to?
The violent crime you speak of is male on male. The oppressive omnipresent threat of violence against women is by men. The population of male victims of violent crimes has a high degree of overlap with the population of perpetrators of violent crime (i.e. Your statement is like saying men are greater victims of war, when it is fact men exclusively who have perpetrated those very wars).
>Do you understand what it is like to be a woman, to have to look over your shoulder so much of the time, the fear and anxiety that follows you or prevents you from walking alone at night or in a strange place?
I like how women think this uniquely applies to them.
As if all men are just brimming with confidence, completely unafraid and always ready to do battle. As if they can walk past a hooded figure on a dark street and physiologically remaining completely unaffected.
If you can't recognize the difference, you aren't talking with or listening to enough women in your circle about this sort of thing. I would highly encourage you to do so.
Regardless, the parent is not saying that men don't also experience the fear of violence.
The parent said "do you know?" Implying that as a male I had zero knowledge of what it's like to feel that way. Which implies that I have never felt that way. Which implies that whenever I'm in a situation that makes a woman feel that way, it doesn't make me feel that way.
I'm sorry but it does. So,yes I do know.
Is it worse for women? My assumption is at least 2x ~ 3x. The difference being when I walk past a shadowy figure in the street I mutter to myself "please don't kill me" while they think "OMG, please please please don't kill me".
The vectors point in exactly the same direction. The magnitude is what's different.
The original comment implied the vectors didn't even point in the same direction or had zero magnitude for men.
It's best you ask some women you know in person (female colleagues at work, female friends of your friends, your sister(s), your mom), and listen to them in earnest.
You may make some female friends this way. Men who listen to women, who truly listen, are rare.
I'm sorry, all that you said applies to men as well.
Besides, your statement about wars is outright insulting! You've degraded the male victims of war (of whom there are a lot more) entirely by shifting blame for violence on them. In most wars you'd get thrown in jail if you refuse to go and fight!
> Do you understand what it is like to be a woman, to have to look over your shoulder so much of the time, the fear and anxiety that follows you or prevents you from walking alone at night or in a strange place?
Do you understand what it's like to be a man? I was mugged five times as a boy and young man, including at knife point. Police have harassed me.
Are you suggesting it's more pleasant to be threatened with your life as a man than a woman?
If not, then I'll go with the numbers and not imply, as you do, that no man can understand about being a victim of violent crime.
The "patently absurd take" is that women are the disadvantaged gender in the US.
(Obviously the situation is very different in some countries.)