There’s a part where they explain the 34% is based off of all male victims, assuming that none of the abusers were male. They’re trying to say that even their estimate of 34% is likely an over estimate of how many women are abusing people.
Not that that means men aren’t getting abused or what have you, but I don’t think it was a spin job. Just a breakdown of the numbers.
I’m a bit wary of the 2011 stat for male victims with male perpetrators. Not that I don’t believe women make up a significant number of abusers, nor that it should be ignored, but the idea that men on men assault is that low seems out of place with other factors, like child abuse cases, prison/military cases, same sex couples/assault, or even medical facility cases. If we take the 40% of rapists are women, and the remaining 60% are men, I honestly can’t imagine that only a fraction of those men hurt other men. Enough to out weight female perpetrators? I don’t think so, at least not from any statistics I’m seeing (most recent I found was about 12% for male child abuse victims specifically, which is still quite “low” since that would leave the remaining 88% perpetrators as female(or other?) Not to mention men are less likely to report rape, let alone penatrative rape (thanks society). I don’t know if there’s any number that would make me go “Oh, it’s not that bad,” but I don’t think men on men violence is as uncommon.
But numbers are numbers. Probably just my own bias trying to work around it 🤷🏿♀️