Similar too, "white people are shot by cops". Similar to "white people are discriminated against in colleges".
The point is true it is shitty no matter. Though, now the conversation is shifted if a person were to focus on root causes of either problem. Overall, false equivalence.
Sorry, I see your point, I know that this is used to derail conversations, you're right, but "false equivalence" kinda implies that one thing is worse than the other. It is, systematically, but it isn't, personally. If you were raped, it doesn't help you that the power dynamic is and was different in our society between genders and your chance was lower, you are still as scarred for life.
Maybe say this explicitly also, when talking about "false equivalence". It may be kinda hurtful to hear people say more or less "oh yeah, both shitty, but one thing is the real problem in society, let's not derail" without this very important distinction.
Because you cannot assume that everyone or even the majority makes that distinction. Everyone agrees that people getting shot is bad on the personal level for the victim, because then they are dead. But many people think a e.g. boy getting raped (regardless of the perpetrators gender) is less of a problem on the personal level for the victim.
It is not. It really is not. And it hurts, because even people you trust suddenly say shit like "for boys it's not that serious, they don't keep this baggage for the rest of their life", "they work it out fast". But it's just not true.
I know that you probably didn't mean it that way, I just wanna tell you that that's the way it may be read. Because many people actually say this and mean it in the "on the personal level, for the victim, it's not as bad" way and thus it may be very difficult not to default to the "worse" interpretation, after being burned by assuming the "better" interpretation once before.
Sorry for the nitpicking ^^'
The false equivalence is not the impact of the problem, but the prevalence of the problem.
AFAIK, most yearly sexual harrassment training at workplaces is mandated in most states. That training makes it clear any gender can instigate harrassment. I'm surprised that this seems like anything new.
If a person wants to deal with sexual harassment, you kinda need to make an impact on the 90% causes of the problem. Instead, this kind of "man bites dog" story does results in debates of nitpicking. Nobody said this isn't horrible for anyone to experience, men or woman. But, creating a false equivalence that this is an equal problem for everyone ignores what are going to be otherwise uncomfortable truths.
It's one of those problems where one side doesn't need to win, just make sure that the other side does not (eg, troll, buy time, change the subject, what-aboutism, attack the messenger, etc..)
The data we have is that sexual assault and harrasment from woman is rare. That does not mean it does not happen, but it is rare. Some commentators stated that men being harassed is under reported, well it is overall under-reported.
In sum, sexual harrasment is a big problem no matter who experiences it. Though, the focus here creates a real risk of a "man bites dog" type of story.
It was not a willful mis-reading. I do not think you are a hypocrite, and my comment was not meant to create a "straw retort". I honestly believe you want to erradicate rape. I tried my best to make this as clear as possible, if I wasn't able to convey it well enough that is my fault and I'm sorry. English is not my first language, this is not meant as a justification.
I just wanted to tell you that "false equivalence" in this context can be used in two ways by different people. You used it in the way you restate in this comment. I totally agree with you.
Some people use it in a different way, though. Some people will tell you (in your face, in real life) that sexual assault against boys is not as bad impact wise (*regardless* of the gender of the perpetrator, in the example I'm thinking of it was even a male perpetrator), because they will not be impacted in the long-term and the body parts that are "used" are not as intimate for boys. That's a really shit take, IMO, even more shit if it's close friends that think like that. Stuff like that makes it a bit hard to always assume that "the impact is the same" is really implicitly included. :/
Again, I never assumed (with my brain) you were one of those people and now I know for sure. But those opinions started exactly the same way. They just did not then state that "the impact is bad and / or equal in both cases", but continued that "the impact is not as bad in one case, the impact is not comparable". It's a... false equivalence, impact wise.
I misread it in the latter way initially for a short while (especially because of the comparison to "whites are discriminated against in college"), and I hope you believe me when I tell you that it was not a willful mis-reading. Sometimes the heart reads before the brain, you know? Sorry. :)
That was more or less all I wanted to tell you. That some people may misread statements like "Overall, false equivalence." because they experienced very bad takes on this topic that started similarly in the past, and it may be a good idea to e.g. explictly state "Overall, while the individual impact is equal, women are more often victims of sexual assault.". Because then it is immediately clear what you mean, and "the impact is equal" is not only said implicitly. :)
But if you don't want to, that's totally okay, too, of course! It's only a small suggestion.
Again, I agree with your point. Sorry for the inconvenience, I shouldn't have written that comment in the first place. I'm just a bit too thin-skinned with this subject. Sorry. I hope you have a nice week.
Eg: "cyclist kills pedestrian" The town hall and citizenry get up in arms to protect pedestrians, letters to the editors are flying about the menace of push bikes, links are shared and retweeted thousands of times. Laws are passed to enforce bicycle registration, speed limits on trails are imposed and metered, enforcement task forces are created, and proud press releases from the mayor to address the citizens concerns for "getting tough on bikes - we will protect the pedestrians!"
Meanwhile, a pedestrian is struck and killed by a motor vehicle every 85 minutes in the USA. A pedestrian being struck and killed by a bicycle is just rare. While the families of either victim grieve just as much as the other, the measures to protect the pedestrians are virtue signaling and overall a way to avoid dealing with the real problem (like, actually making people drive under 35mph so crashes are survivable for pedestrians, etc..)
And that's exactly correct in this case. The answer is not "ignore or dismiss people who ask about why we don't focus on women doing X", it's "we should investigate women doing X too, because X is wrong no matter who does it".
