I’m not being obscurantist and not trying to hide it, I’m explicitly calling you a liar. Put up or shut up.
“Put up” how, dear? You can call me a liar if you want to, but I don’t consider myself obligated to “shut up” just because you do, even if you are a gweat big stwong man on the internet.
If what you are clumsily attempting to do is ask “Cite?” about some statement I’ve made, you should do so explicitly while identifying the statement in question.
Wow, how very misandrist of you. Keep fighting sister.
You are quite consistent in refusing to provide any evidence for your hate-filled claims.
Here in the States, men are far more likely to be murdered than women are. I don’t know about you, but I favor murdering more women to even up the numbers*. Who’s with me?!!!
- Not really.
My point, which is that far more women are murdered by men than men murdered by women, does not dispute this.
You keep refusing to specify which particular “claim” of mine you’re talking about.
“men are more likely to be murdered, because most of the people active in high-violence environments (gang wars, bar fights, etc.) are men”
So, firstly, prove that the reason men are more likely to be murdered is because of “gang wars, bar fights, etc.”
“If we consider people who suffer violent acts without themselves committing violent acts, they are much more likely to be female than male.”
So, secondly, prove that the number of female victims of violent crime who did not commit acts of violence themselves is larger than the number of male victims of violent crime who did not commit acts of violence themselves. Given the fact that men are significantly more likely to be victims of violent crime this will mean showing most male victims to actually be violent criminals themselves.
I have no doubt at all that you are unable to prove these absurd and hate-fueled claims, and fully expect your next post to be yet another demand that I specify what proof you’re suppose to provide.
How do you explain the fact that far more women are murdered by men then there are men murdered by women?
In the first place, you’ve mixed up the concepts of “number” and “percentage”.
In the second place, you’ve mixed up your comparison of male and female risk levels. If X% of female victims of violence are involved in violence themselves, and if Y% of male victims of violence are involved in violence themselves, and Y is greater than X, that doesn’t automatically mean that Y is greater than 50%. But it still means that a female victim is more likely than a male victim to have suffered violence without participating in violence.
Demographics of homicide perpetrators and victims:
Circumstances of homicides:
As you can see from figure 40 in that report, which I can’t reproduce here, the two largest known categories of circumstance for homicides are felony-related and argument-related (including brawls), in both of which the majority of participants are male. The male domination of drug-related and gang-related homicides is even more disproportionate.
Since you seem to have had some difficulty understanding this, let me repeat that none of this means that men deserve to suffer violence or that they’re just violent brutes by nature or that they aren’t entitled to empathy and protection from violence. It simply means that the main reason that men are more involved in violence than women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is that society considers violent environments and situations to be more normative for males.
Anti-vax loon Sherri Tenpenny has her own fucking explanation:
Fucking cunt.
No, you’re trying to move the goalposts. Lets look at your claim again:
"If we consider people who suffer violent acts* without themselves committing violent acts**, they are much more likely to be female than male."*
Your claim is that, of those who are innocent victims of violent crime, women are a large majority. Innocent victims, as opposed to those committing acts of violence themselves, are “much more likely to be female than male”, that is your claim.
You claim was not that male victims of violent crime are more likely than female victims of violent crime to have also committed acts of violence. Your claim was that victims of violent crime who did not commit acts of violence are “much more likely” to be female than male.
It could well be that male victims are more likely to have committed acts of violence themselves but, and this is the relevant part, men are still much more likely to be victims of violent crime even when they themselves do not commit acts of violence.
For the sake of argument I’ll take homicides as being representative of violent crimes in general.
Figure 40 actually says that the largest category is “unknown”.
The “felony-related” murders are those where the murder was committed during the course of a felony, in other words while the perpetrator was, for example, burglarising someone’s house. in other words the man being murdered in a “felony-related” homicide was not himself committing any criminal, let alone violent, act. It says so in the small print under the table. Women murdered while being raped would show up in this category, according to that small print. So it’s hardly evidence that the victims had themselves committed acts of violence, and therefore doesn’t support your position.
The “argument” category includes brawls, but also includes “disagreements about money or property”. In other words, it isn’t evidence that the victims had indulged in acts of violence, and doesn’t support your position. Even the “gang” category, which is the smallest of them all, explicitly includes children, and even you might cavil at assuming those innocent babes mowed down in a drive-by were simultaneously letting loose with a tommy gun.
So forget figure 40, it’s got no information at all about how many victims were themselves committing acts of violence.
Moving on to table 5, it shows that men are more likely to die from gang and drug causes, yes. It also shows men are nearly four times as likely to be killed at work, are more likely to die from arson and poison and so on. unfortunately there are no numbers, nor percentages of the overall numbers of murders, shown on that table, and therefore no way to determine the important of those figure to the overall statistics. Table six, on the other hand, shows that 25% of male murder victims didn’t know their murderer at all (neighbours, employees, acquaintances and “other known”, which one imagines would include gang warfare rivals and drug dealers, are covered elsewhere in the table). The figure for women in only 11% of murder victims. Of course none of that provides any evidence for your position that male victims of violent crime are more likely than female victims to have committed acts of violence themselves, let alone for your original position that innocent victims are “much more likely” to be female.
In that case I’m curious why you brought it up. We were talking about who has more to fear from a death threat, I said men because they are so much more likely to be victims of violent crime, you said women because you claimed most male victims had also committed acts of violence and thereby brought that violence onto themselves.
Well according to figure 12 men are more than 50% more likely to be murdered after reaching 65 years old. According to figure 11 boys under five are more likely than girls to be murdered by a significant amount, I won’t estimate a percentage because there are four zigzag lines. I’m curious as to what sort of “violent environments and situations” it is “normative” to see five year olds or sixty five year olds in.
Looking at Table 6, remembering that the same percentage for men represents three times as many murders as it does for women, as men are so much more likely to be murdered overall, shows men also more likely to be murdered by their parents, their children, their siblings and their neighbours. What sort of “violent environments” might prevail there? Is the parent-child dynamic really so perilous?
Do you know you’re replying to something I quoted rather than something I wrote?
In what way is what you are responding to relevant to what you have written?
How do you explain that women are three times as likely to murder men as they are women? And that men are also three times as likely to murder men as women?
The topic has digressed into a discussion of relative rates of being victimized by sexist violence, oppression, and the like. This is relevant to that topic.
I guess you have no explanation.
These statistics are not relevant to the topic, since we are discussing the likelihoods of people being attacked, not people attacking someone.
Despite all this, men still kill far more women than women kill men. Women are at a far greater risk of being killed by a man than men are of being killed by a woman. Women have far more reason to fear men than men do to fear women.
When someone brings up ratios to “prove” a point, I’m always suspicious of why they didn’t go by the actual numbers. Care to elucidate for us, or are they too inconvenient to dwell upon ?
Which would be entirely false. Talk about moving the goalposts.
No. I didn’t say that most male victims had also committed acts of violence, nor did I suggest that any male victims of violence had “brought that violence onto themselves”.
But we live in a society where committing violence is traditionally held to be much more normative for men than for women. This is why men are much more involved in violence than women are, and why women are so much more likely to be passive victims of violence than active participants in it.
It was you that provided a cite dealing entirely with murder in a discussion about violent victimisation. Are you now repudiating your own source, as well as your original claim?
You said that most victims of violent crime who had not committed acts of violence were women, although you’re now refusing to address that, and given that men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime that is, in fact, exactly what you said.
No, again, we live in a society where committing violence against men is more normative that doing so against women. That is what this thread has mutated into being about, and that is what you were claiming was untrue.
Again, men are not much more involved in violence because it’s normative for them to commit acts of violence, but because it’s normative for them to be the victims of violence. You’re claiming, again, and again without proof, that men are more likely to be victims of violence solely because they are more likely to be violent themselves: this is untrue, it’s victim-blaming, and it’s an intentional lie on your part.
Well if we’re talking about victimisation then perpetration rates are irrelevant, so your question was off topic.
Then, again, the relevant fact is that men are much more likely to be attacked, your questions about perpetration rates are completely irrelevant.
These statistics are not relevant to the topic, since we are discussing the likelihoods of people being attacked, not people attacking someone.
We are discussing the likelihoods of people being attacked by members of the opposite gender, so these statistics are indeed relevant. Your efforts to sidestep them are failing. Do you believe there is any significance at all to the fact that men kill far more women than women kill men? Are you just going to try and dodge it for a third time?
Spot on.