I'm sure most people here have seen the well-substantiated statistics on how often men are victimised by women in these areas, and how people in positions of authority have actively engineered definitions and things in a way that surely constitutes deliberate action to minimise public perception that this kind of stuff happens to men. And I'm sure most or all of us would agree that it's worked; the average person posting about this stuff online seems to assume that domestic abuse and sexual victimisation of men by women is so close to non-existent that it isn't worth talking about.

But I don't really understand what the point of all this is. I'm sure a lot of it does the work for itself; once you've convinced a large percentage of women that those are the statistics, they will obviously prioritise what they think is the most serious issue. But what about that small percentage of people who must be aware of what the real statistics are but actively suppress or contort them? What's the point?

Like, one interpretation could be that governments suppress or disregard the real statistics because acknowledging them would basically force them to put as much money and effort into counteracting those men's issues (they couldn't draw money out of women's issues to do this or they'd be ripped apart in the press, and they can't afford to double the amount they're spending on these problems atm).

Another interpretation could be that the small percentage of women who are in positions of authority and are suppressing the statistics just personally want to live in a world where they're protected from men but can still abuse them with impunity, because this just makes things more convenient for them. I'm wary of any interpretation where a large swathe of women actively want it to be legal for them to abuse men, because I feel like this is the kind of generalisation we're often fighting against in the other direction.

But I guess it is also the kind of attitude I've noticed in my own relationships - e.g. people having strong opinions about consent (rightfully) but then reframing it within the relationship because they strongly desire sex from their partner and don't want to have to deal with the inconvenient fact that pressuring them into it is really bad. But I find this normally seems to be semi-subconscious; they've been socialised to view consent as unidirectional, so it doesn't occur to them that they can't treat their male partner as some kind of 'sex faucet'.

I feel like I'm getting off-topic so I'll finish here: what do you think the structural reason for this is? Are my thoughts too cynical?