In your coverage of the Jerry Sandusky prosecution, Mike McQueary testified that he witnessed a 10-year-old boy being raped — but since “it was more than [his] brain could handle” he retreated to his office. In casual conversation, and in the media in general, I’ve noticed that McQueary’s “in the moment” response to the rape — or lack of response — is treated with an amazingly high level of understanding.

On observing the lack of outrage at McQueary’s failure to intervene, I’ve asked people: “What if McQueary had witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old girl and then gone off to ponder the situation?” Would they feel the same way? Unequivocally, no.

By relentlessly promoting the notion that violent crime victims are primarily female, feminist ideologues have done a great job of framing “violence against women” as the central issue. Decrying domestic violence, along with seeing it as exclusively male in origin, are now cultural mainstays; while violent crime in general and the scandalous epidemic of violence in our prisons, which fall most heavily on impoverished men, have been systematically ignored by those promoting the notion of gender-specific victimization. (Outside the criminal realm, over 90 percent of workplace and combat injuries and deaths are still experienced by men.)

When compared with a low-income male, the chance of an upper- or middle-income American female experiencing any kind of violent crime is negligible. But, violence against men and boys is still not created equal.?

— Patrick Newman, Chico