I'm afraid I can't accept the conditions of this, largely because of the "socially condoned" caveat.
Rape is not socially condoned. (Actually, some of my feminist allies would say that it is, but I won't go there for now).
Rediculous.
Even the most fringe of male cultures condemn rapists. That's why they are incarcerated seperately from the majority of prisoners, otherwise they will be sexually tortured and *killed* by them.
Women are far more likely to be victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault.
This is the perception, yes. But it may not be the reality.
On your website someone linked to a rape resource that put the precentage of rapes with men as the victim at 40%. Other resources I've seen indicate that the rate of "date rape victimization" between men and women is roughly equal. Further I've read researchers who have studied the phenomena of prison rape and conclude that the similarities between community rape of males and prison rape of males are compelling enough to suggest there may be a completely invisible epidemic of community rapes of males.
Further I know, anacdotaly, of a rapist who preyed exclusively on male hitch-hikers (young men from mid teens to mid twenties) who detailed his conquests in a journal and managed to victimize 200 young men before *1* went to the police.
All this suggests to me that you cannot say *definitively* that the majority of sexual assualt occures against women. That assumption is just that, an assumption, and it's based on systemic homophobic predjudice.
From a feminist perspective, the problem is not that rape is socially condoned (though it is often excused, say, on college campuses), the problem is that insufficient resources have been devoted to protecting women from rape.
This is where the idea of value comes in.
Rape, on the whole, is not socially condoned. But support and protection depends on the worthiness of the victim.
Let me list a "worthy victim" hierarchy for rape.
1. Wealthy white women.
2. Non-wealthy white women
3. Non-white women
4. Men
The funding for rape follows the heirarchy of worthy victims. With wealthy white women getting the most, as well as the most protection, and men getting the least and the least protection. Interestingly, aside from the ambigious catagory of male victims, the hierarchy also goes from "least likely to be victimized" ie. wealthy white women, to "most likely to be victimized" ie. non-white women.
As for the rape of men you could almost place it in the "socially condoned" catagory. What with common expressions like "if he was a real man he would have..." or "what does a man who's being raped sound like? 'Don't! Stop! Don't... stop! Don't stop!" and the never ending dropping the soap jokes.
Our society believes men would only refuse sex in a situation where it would compromise his sexuality. Similar to the patriarchal assumption that a woman would only refuse sex in a situation where it would compromise her good name or reputation. Both are based on the apparent "inherent" venality of the oppressed gender (men or women). And then a gender biased society further says "if he was really a man he would have died before he let himself be raped"(matriarchal) or "if she was really a virtuous woman she would have died before she let herself be raped"(patriarchal.) Thus excusing itself from condemning the rape.
And as for the rape of non-white women. One could conclude that they inhabit an ambigious catagory between condoned and not-condoned. Their plight is highlighted when it suits their white "sisters", but generally ignored when it comes to the breakdown of resources.
The fact that rape is not socially condoned does not mean that women are safe from sexual assault.
And the fact that theft is not socially condoned does not make the wealthy safe from being robbed. Can we conclude from that that we live in a communist society?
Feminism, at least as I understand it, seeks equal access for women in all walks of life. But granting legal access is meaningless if women cannot participate in public life as fearlessly as men can.
This is completely ambigious and impossible to measure. So as long as women "fear" being in public, we can ignore the greater rate of victimization that men suffer?
I'm afraid that I find typhonblue's insistence that all biases against women be socially condoned to be an unacceptable limitation to the discussion.
It was a challenge.
So you cannot find one socially condoned example of women's oppression?
Do you understand what that means? It means that society does not condone the oppression of women. Therefore we don't live in a society that is oppressive towards women.
This is the very basis of your belief system and you cannot support it.
Author