Ah yes, femicide... a very common turn of phrase I have seen readily discussed many times before today.
This is rank with the kind of fearbating that lives on fox news. I wasn't expecting it here. Even if true it reads like rage bait.
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
219 points (96.6% liked)
News
23397 readers
3669 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The idea of stranger danger was created to give the real predators cover
Posting this from another thread.
It's a shame that this data is being presented this poorly, because this is a really important issue that deserves attention. None of the figures presented in the linked article have the proper context to understand them. Even the UN report itself does not present their findings well.
So, for instance, 140 women per day is of course more than the ideal number of zero, but there are billions of people on this planet. To actually quantify the gender imbalance of this number, we need to compare it to the number of men who are victims in the same way. From the report:
Globally, approximately 51,100 women and girls were killed by their intimate partners or other family members [...out of...] 85,000 women and girls killed intentionally during the year [...] In other words, an average of 140 women and girls worldwide lost their lives every day at the hands of their partner or a close relative.
The report does not offer corresponding numbers for male (or non-binary) victims. It does, however, say that 11.8% of male victims and 60.2% of female victims are killed by partners or other family members. It also acknowledges that 80% of all homicide victims are men and 20% women, which is beside the point as this is about domestic violence, but it will allow us to do some math to arrive at numbers to compare against.
- 85,000 * 80/20 = 340,000 men killed total
- 340,000 * 11.8% = 40,120 men killed by partners or family
- so we are comparing 40,120 men with 51,100 women
- women are 27.4% more likely than men to be killed by partners or family.
...which should have been the headline. 27% more is massive! Domestic violence is a huge issue, and women are more likely to suffer from it!
There is no need to obfuscate the numbers to be less honest. The honest numbers themselves are shocking enough, and scientifically literate readers won't dismiss your credibility along with your cause. I look forward to future UN reports communicating these horrifying statistics a bit more clearly.
Edit: Wtf is wrong with ya'll? This article is only about one kind of violence that women are more suseptible too. That's it. No one is trying to say men aren't getting hurt, or even that women being harmed is the #1 cause of women's death. Someone has a post like, "Well, women are more likely to slip, so that's more dangerous, so there!" Like, okay??? Men are usually the victims of violent crimes and homicides, but when they looked at home based partner abuse, women come out on top. Like, damn.
Here's some articles on men since apparently we can't have an article talking about something specific. ~~I guess I should leave a comment on all of these saying "What about the girls!"~~ :
Men and boys are also victims of sex trafficking
Wtf is wrong with ya'll? This article is only about one kind of violence that women are more susceptible too. That's it. No one is trying to say men aren't getting hurt, or even that women being harmed is the #1 cause of women's death.
Maybe we're just exhausted of being preached to about how hard life always is for women while at the same time being told life is never hard enough for men and boys to matter, and if it is, it's their own fault? Or about how men are shit stains who are all at fault for everything each man has ever done and maybe should just all die? When the overall discourse is 99% about women and girls, each individual article becomes inseparable from the overall cultural norm that none of men's suffering matters but all of women's suffering does, no matter what it is.
Literally in this thread
Would the world be better if we limited the amount of men allowed in the world? It's like every waking moment is a remind of how terrible we are.
And men are usually the most common victim of violence …from other men. This is if you take in the gang violence and LBGTQ factor. This is not to say that men cannot die from women or women are on some sort of pedestal this is just to say men are more likely to be killed by another man than a woman in many circumstances.
Thank you.
To be fair to the Guardian, their headline is substantive, compared to the other article that just gave a number without context. The report does clearly support the assertion that on average home is the most dangerous place for women to be attacked.
I'm confused - how are the numbers they provided less honest? You came up with a different stat than what they're focusing on, but I don't see how that makes it more honest.
Well, the way they initially presented has people coming in saying "Well, men get hurt too" like they're trying to say they don't. The way this first explained the numbers is saying, "Hey, they're 27% more likely to be harmed." All the person did was turn the data into a percentage.
It's a dishonest representation. It ignores violence against men entirely, and makes it look like women in relationships should expect to be killed.
How is it dishonest? It's looking at one specific kind of harm. It just happens men aren't the highest statistic for this kind of violence. That's literally all it's saying. "When it comes to relationship violence, women tend to be victims more often than men." If this was a report about suicide and they were ignoring men, I would get the issue.
It's like an article talking about smokers being more likely to get lung cancer. It's not the only way to get it, but they're focusing on smokers. We wouldn't go, "Well they're ignoring all the miners." They just happen to not be the focus of that study.
Context is important in statistics, which is why the Mark Twain quote is so popular. An honest article about smoking and cancer is going to say smokers have an 80% higher chance of cancer than non-smokers, showing the relationship between the two groups, not showing how much of a single group falls into a single category.
Focusing on a subset of a subset to get a scary sounding number is a dishonest tactic to get an emotional response rather than a logical one.
The only way they could get this information is to compare it, that's why they're focusing on women, they happened to come out in top. If they said "smokers have an 80% higher chance of cancer", I'm taking it that they compared it to people who don't smoke, they don't need to tell me that because I can infer it. If I get a report that says "men are 50% more likely to die in combat" I wouldn't sit and go, "compared to what? Women? CHILDREN!? Why are they just focusing on men, like women don't die in combat! They're just showing scary numbers!" they're focusing on the group that came out in top and delving into that. I don't know how you would read the title of the article and be surprised that that is what they are focusing on.
The article isn't saying X% more likely though. It's saying X% of women who die by homicide are from domestic violence. That sounds bad, but it gives you no actionable information for what this means for homicide or domestic violence as a whole.
It's really only a way to spread fear that if a woman is going to be killed, it's likely from domestic violence.
The final line of the snippet states: "Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, UN Women’s deputy executive director, said: “What the data is telling us is that it is the private and domestic sphere’s of women’s lives, where they should be safest, that so many of them are being exposed to deadly violence." It is not saying that, if women die, it's likely from DV, nor are they claiming to speak for homicide as a whole. They're saying that in cases of DV, women are more likely to be the victim. It's not spreading fear, it's just awareness. It sounds bad because it is bad. Sometimes that's just how it is.
Don’t worry, men are more likely to be killed from gang violence or in a homosexual relationship with domestic violence . There ya go, you’re not ignored. You’re #1 in some circumstances too.
The leasing non-disease causes for death in women are:
- Falling (primarily elderly women)
- Unintentional poisoning (primarily middle aged women)
- Car accidents (primarily younger women)
- Suicide
- Homicide at 5th place
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683079/
And thats ignoring, of course, all the actual leading causes of death which are various diseases, primarily heart diseases of course, and COVID.
Mind you that still does indicate that home is where most people die, but it's not homicide you should be worried about.
It's your stairs and... garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must. (Edit: drug overdoses, whoops)
So I guess what ladies should really be wary of is their stairs, ladders, and those leftovers that you're not sure about from the weekend.
Just as an example, for every 1 homicide victims in women aged 20-39, there were (in the same group):
- 4.5 unintentional poisoning deaths (drug overdoses)
- 2.7 traffic accident deaths
- 2.1 suicides
And among women aged 70+ years, there were no homicides in the data, but over 60% of injury related deaths were caused by falling. Just... Falling. Not homicide, just "mum had a fall yesterday and had to see the doctor"
I suppose that really drives home how important building codes are and stuff like life alert, for old folks...
If you account for the actual leading causes of death though, where you really outta be wary of are fast food chains, public transit, and low ventilation workspaces with sneezy coworkers. That's what'll actually be most likely to kill you...
I guess with skip the dishes being a thing though, that's still home being the most "dangerous" place anyways, /shrug
This is ignoring the fact that not every women who is a victim of intimate partners violence is murdered by that intimate partner. Those who die are a very small minority of those who suffer. Women absolutely have to be concerned about being physically or sexually harmed by intimate partners. It is so common that we have to for our own survival.
No one said that doesnt happen.
But the article is trying to frame homicide at home as the leading danger to women. It's pretty demonstratebly not, it's a small minority of causes for injury and death amongst women.
Accidents are substantially more common as a source of danger for women, by an enormous margin, both in lethal and non lethal cases.
Literally anyone who has ever worked in an ER can attest to the fact that the vast vast majority of injuries are accident related.
Women should be a fuck tonne more concerned about the shitty products ordered from China that can genuinely kill them (lithium batteries, tools, healthy and beauty products, electronics, etc), as well as practicing proper safety precautions when doing tasks (PPE, having a spotter, avoiding lifting too much weight, etc).
That shit is enormously more dangerous than domestic violence, in terms of pure statistics, by an enormous margin.
This is just entirely ignorant of how prolific domestic violence against women is. There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.
This is not a conversation about cause of mortality. The purpose of highlighting the ways women are abused and murdered by intimate partners is to examine how widespread the issue of violence against women is.
Domestic violence is, statistically, something the majority of women will face at some point in their life. We are telling you that broadly speaking, the entire class of women is suffering the effects of chronic victimization by intimate partners, and you will do absolutely anything to avoid addressing it for what it is.
There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.
I'm going to need to see some sources on that, that sounds incredibly high.
Have a read at my other comment in the thread then. I provide several links covering this exact thing.
Honestly, the fact that this is surprising to you is kind of incredible. Most of the women I know have been victims of domestic violence. Including family members.
Ah I see, right so the key in your date is it's historical.
It's not a 60% victimization rate in discrete circumstances. It's a victimization rate hysterically.
Which is critical because there's an enormous difference between "60% of women are being victimized actively" vs "60% 9f women are reporting having been victimized at some point historically"
The difference is such:
Let's do the usual poisoned m&ms in a bowl analogy.
If 1% of m&ms are poisoned, but you grab 100 m&ms and eat them, your odds of getting poisoned are waaay higher than 1%, it's now 63%!
So on a discrete measure of "what percent of women are actively living in a victimizing situation right now" it will be fairly low, I don't know if we have that data.
But a woman moves through numerous situations in her life. She likely lives with many people, goes to many jobs, interacts with many strangers.
So while one discrete dice roll can have extremely low odds of a bad outcome, naturally living life inherently means you will roll that dice hundreds of times.
Inversely, when talking about "are women currently safe in their homes?" That's a discrete statistic, not historical.
It's like comparing eating a handful of the m&ms vs eating only 1 m&m, the numbers are wildly different and if you try and present one as the other, you will come across as disingenuous.
When discussing mortality rates, that's a discrete event, moat people typically only die once.
You either are, or are not, dead.
So when discussing whats most likely to kill you, you look at the discrete numbers and it's objectively fact that the discrete odds of being murdered are incredibly low compared to dying pretty much any other way.
While bring harassed historically is high, the odds a woman's current living situation right now is one of violence is much lower than 60%
Because if it was 60%, then the odds of being historically a victim of any type of violence would be pretty much 100%.
But the fact that number is 60% means the discrete number is, eyeballing it with rough numbers, going to be in the single digits.
Are you under the impression that once your boyfriend is done assaulting you, you go back to normal? Or that after your husband beats you and threatens to kill you, that you resume normal life afterwards? Or that when you are sexually harassed by adult male family members as a teenager, once it's over you're able to continue growing into an adult without any impact on you? No, you don't. Being a victim of intimate partner violence is not something that ends once the specific act is done. Many women suffer the effects of it for their entire lives. An abusive relationship can also last decades. Most abusive relationships are long term ones. It is very difficult to leave an abuser, even moreso if that person is a member of your family.
This is far and away the most deranged response I have ever seen. Rambling, completely incoherent and entirely unrelated to the subject matter?
These studies are self reported as well. They're not account for violence against children under the age of 15, and by nature, they come in under the actual figures. The reality is that women as a class suffer chronic victimization of male violence. The overwhelming majority of women have experienced gender based violence at some point in their lives.
It’s your stairs and… garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must.
Drug overdoses.
Ah, fuck, yeah that'd be it wouldn't it.
Or suicide, but the family has enough influence to get it ruled accidental.
Would the world be better if we limited the amount of men allowed in the world? It's like every waking moment is a remind of how terrible we are.
This data is worthless without the corresponding rate for men.
I think the point of studies like this is to show that violence against women is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people they know. People love to characterize the epidemic of physical and sexual violence against women as though it's because of random horrible men targeting women in dark alleys. This directly shows that this is not the case. It's overwhelmingly men that women know directly. The vast majority is committed by intimate partners and close male family members in women's homes.
Women who speak out against this violence are very frequently met with shame and further violence. Even in cases where the man is obviously in the wrong. I would know as I and several of my friends have had this experience ourselves. Society is only sympathic to women who have experienced violence in mass media. When it comes to women in their hometowns, in their local communities, they often face outright hostility. The problem of misogyny is far more widespread than people are willing to acknowledge.
I think the point of studies like this is to show that violence against women is overwhelmingly perpetrated by people they know.
The thing is: Interpersonal violence in general is mostly perpetrated by someone the victim knows, so we have no idea how strong the "women" part of the equation is. This study only says women are more likely to be killed by intimate partners or family members, which isn't saying much because outside of active warzones or other places of rampant violence everyone is more likely to be killed by intimate partners or family members.
Edit: See 2ugly2live's comment in this thread for what I mean. Now that's useful data.
I live in Canada, so I'll use data for here. Before I do I'd like to point out that this is misogyny. There is never any degree of acceptability for the amount of violence women are subjected to. It wouldn't matter if men suffered literally the exact same amount. This is not a petty "who has it worse" contest. This is addressing the horrifying reality that the majority of women will be abused by an intimate partner at some point in their life.
The Canada gender-based-violence fact sheet shows some data on rates of violence against women for different groups. Crucially it shows an overall victimization rate of 44% for all women. It shows an unwanted sexual behavior victimization rate of 61% of women aged 15 to 24. It also shows 93% of all female victims of gender based homicide were murdered by a male intimate partner or family member.
There are other government of canada studies, such as this one, that show that men also experience intimate partner violence. It is notable that none of the figures can even be construed as equivalent, the rate of victimization is higher for women across the board. These studies are based on self report surveys, not on crime reports.
Then there is this aggregate of information page created by the Canadian government to show exactly the ways in which gender based violence against women is unique and horrific. Here's a couple key points but you can check it yourself as well.
- 10% of women have been forced by an intimate partner to have sex compared with 2% of men
- 8% of women report being made to perform sex acts they did not want to compared with 1% of men
- 7% of women have been choked by an intimate partner compared with 1% of men
- 37% of women report having ever been afraid of a partner compared with 9% of men
- women who reported being victims of IPV were twice as likely as men to report daily or nearly daily rates of victimization
- 33% of women reported having been sexually assaulted since the age of 15 as compared with 9% of men
- 12% of women have been sexually assaulted by an intimate partner as compared with 2% of men
- 32% of women in Canadian provincial regions reported unwanted sexual behaviors in a public place compared with 13% of men
- 29% of women in Canadian provincial regions reported unwanted sexual behavior in the workplace as compared with 17% of men
- overall 79% of people experiencing intimate partner violence were women
And there's lots of other data on this for other countries and even more for Canada as well. This is official stats Canada surveys. Their methodology and everything is available online. These studies show conclusively beyond any reasonable doubt that violence against women is a systemic issue at all levels of society and in all aspects of the lives of Canadian women.
It wouldn't matter if men suffered literally the exact same amount.
It would, though, because domestic violence based on gender is a complete different problem from other forms of interpersonal violence with completely different causes. That's why I said the data was worthless without the equivalent for men, because without that we don't (based on the report alone, anyway) know whether homes are dangerous for women because homes are just dangerous or because they're women.
That aside, after skimming through this data, I have to say: This is fucked up. It's also useful information that clearly shows a correlation relation between being a woman and gender-based violence.
Don't let this information just exist passively now that you know it. Remember it the next time you hear a guy going off about his crazy ex-girlfriend who's accusing him of all kinds of stuff. Or when you hear a woman share her story. Or when you see a guy leering at a woman in a public space.
I'm not accusing you of not already recognizing predatory misogynistic behavior for what it is. But the context that the majority of women have experienced these kinds of things is important. When you are safely able to speak up you should. If your friend is abusive to his girlfriend he shouldn't get to be your friend anymore. Men should face severe social consequences for committing acts of violence against women. The reality is that they don't.
I'm confused why they're singling out women in this. 60% of women died from a family member or partner.
I'm honestly surprised it's not higher. Who else would kill them? And do you not think similiar if not higher numbers are true for men?
Would it be more comforting if the statistic were "60% of women who were killed, were killed by a total stranger, for no reason"?
If anything, the 40% scares me more.
This is specifically about intimate partner violence, not a study of every cause of death. They're focusing on women because the numbers are not higher for men. If they were the same, there would be little need to distinguish the two, but they noticed a tend. That's the whole point of this is to highlight that women face a higher risk of harm at home, at the hands of someone they know, than men. That's it. They're not saying men don't also get abused and murdered, nor is it saying the other ways men die aren't valid.
A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report estimated that globally, while 81% of all homicide victims are males, 82% of intimate partner homicide victims are female and 64% of intimate partner/family-related homicide victims are female (UNODC 2019).
It was also estimated that around 1 in 3 (34%) women intentionally killed worldwide are killed by an intimate partner, however, there are large differences across regions. Oceania (which includes Australia) had the highest estimated proportion of women killed exclusively by intimate partners (42%) and Europe had the lowest (29%) (UNODC 2019).
https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/domestic-homicide
Sounds like for women partner/family is a bigger danger. So it’s not similar, women are higher.
Although men are disproportionately the largest homicide demographic overall.