There's been a lot written about Ferguson in the past three weeks. You're all familiar with the story, so I won't rehash it.
This is of course part of a larger pattern, of publicizing killings of blacks by whites (whether justified or not), and ignoring their opposite numbers. Which brings me to the point of this post -- numbers.
From The Color of Crime:
Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
Yet, to listen to the one-sided coverage of such incidents, one would think that we're still living in the Jim Crow South, with lynchings commonplace.
An equivalent (slightly more extreme) scenario:
As we all know, rape is primarily committed by males against females. It is also committed, not infrequently, by males against males, especially in prison. It is occasionally committed by females against females.
And on rare occasions, it has been committed by females against males, in the non-statutory sense, as Wikipedia explains here:
A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman; had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration; or had been made to receive oral sex.
Two myths that men are not able to be raped by women include: Men always want sex, so women do not have to force themselves on men, and men must be aroused to have an erection. However, much like female erectile response, male erectile response is involuntary, meaning that a man need not be aroused for his penis to become erect and be placed in a woman's vagina.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 1% of those convicted of rape are female. (Of course, this includes female-on-female rape as well as cases of statutory rape).
So, it's safe to say that cases of female-on-male rape are but a tiny minority of forcible sex crimes, and that all the "stereotypes" regarding such crimes are true. Even liberals -- actually, particularly liberals -- would agree that this popular perception is based on fact.
Now imagine for a moment that the media, for whatever reason, decided to only focus on female-on-male cases of forcible rape. Whenever such occurred -- and there probably are several such instances every year -- the media would descend on whatever town it occurred in, put it on the front pages for a few weeks running, write anguished editorials about the epidemic of female-on-male violence.
Meanwhile, the national media could just ignore the vast majority of cases where males are the perpetrators and females the victims.
After years of such coverage, some women might object. But every time a female complained publicly about the biased media, they could just be called sexist and shouted down.
Such coverage, and such perceptions, could rightly be termed intrinsically dishonest, could they not?