Congrats to all, especially the OP, for a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of this topic. I came expecting a lot heat but little light, instead, got some very well thought out posts to read.
You’ve convinced me; murdering women should be illegal.
Seriously, though, what are you saying, here? That all those men who killed their wives and girlfriends were motivated by hatred of all women? That’s patently untrue.
Regarding women abusing children statics:
"But that does not tell you the “likelihood” that you are looking for, which is the percent of women caregivers who commit child abuse versus the percent of men caregivers who commit child abuse. More women than men care for children, and more children are cared for by women than are cared for by men.. in the population of all caregivers, men are nearly twice as likely to abuse children as are women. ."THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS
A political nightmare for who? The victims, the victimizers, or the system who can’t be bothered?
If you don’t find a way to prevent the abuse by changing the mentality, you won’t actually solve the problem.
For everyone. When committing a crime against someone who’s a different gender, color, or religion than you gets you more prison time, everyone suffers from such an arbitrary and unjust system. It’s extremely divisive, makes a mockery of legal equality, and accomplishes no good of any kind.
Then change the mentality. Why are you focused on a completely unrelated area, like hate crimes? Honestly, if you wanted to discourage fraud, what makes more sense: increasing the criminal penalty for fraud, or redefining it so that it can also be treason if the victim is American?
Yes, considering those things is important. Therefore, could you address my point, which is that someone would be less likely to report domestic violence in 1996 than today, since that would reveal their sexual orientation, which might not be desirable.
If you actually need more cites, well, that can be arranged -
Cite.
Cite.
Cite.
Those are what we call “anecdotes”, the plural of which is not “data”. Could you please explain how classifying domestic violence as a hate crime would have ensured those women got their restraining orders?
Regards,
Shodan
I have breaking things up. It looks ugly and its to tit for tat for my linking.
I’m saying that it’s likely the researchers found gay people in a clinic or on the street. Gay people out in 96 had less to lose and thus had less to lose reporting a domestic incident. The new statics are probably more accurate. Does it say how likely those women abused in same sex relationships are likely to be murdered by their partners? Like the statistic I gave..
I’m saying that the mentality to accept that there is a pervasive problem of seeing women as sub human objects, and men as naturally having some sort of unspoken dangerous rage that should be overlooked is the problem.
Identifying the true root of gender based violence, the one that leaves whopsided numbers of women/mothers dead is the solution. Just continuing to call it “domestic violence” and giving the offenders 3 strikes does nothing to correct the problem.
Shit, at this point , we can’t even agree that 96% percent of people killed bc of intimate partners are women is a problem. LOL.
Gender statics are the most obvious contenders for fixing problems and the most common to not be touched.
What’s your evidence that the violence is gender-based? You’ve been shown evidence that same-sex couples have the same issues.
People being murdered is a problem, yes. I don’t know why you think the above statistic is suprising. The vast majority of killers are male, most males are heterosexual. Thus, most people killed by their intimate partner will be female.
Most people murdered, however, are male. You’re making these connections to women as sub-human objects and all, when the simple truth is that men are much more likely to kill. They kill other men, and less often they kill women.
Statics?
Do you believe that the abusers will stop abusing because you called the abuse something more negative?
No one has disagreed with any of that. The only disagreement that anyone’s expressed is what a “hate crime” is, legally. And in fact, someone has pointed out to you that (at least under Canadian law) “hate crime” and “domestic violence” are both aggravating factors to the actual crime being committed, and of equivalent strength (if not stronger in the case of DV protection, a lot of the time).
There’s a problem with enforcement, certainly you’ve proven that. What makes you think that adding another label to these bad behaviors that is under-enforced will make them any more likely to be properly punished?
Actually, the first cite uses data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is performed by the Bureau of Justice. So no, it does not appear to be over-sampling the homeless or those in clinics.
Good. Now we have established that domestic violence is at least as prevalent in same-sex relationships as in heterosexual ones. So that would appear to argue against your thesis as to why domestic violence occurs.
I did find an interesting study that predicted that men would be more brutal in the way they murdered women, but the opposite appeared to be true -
Cite.
Which would tend to demonstrate that this -
is not accurate.
Regards,
Shodan
…squints eyes..So you posted a hypothesis in which the “results” were the opposite appeared to be true. But the results are..? where is the actual experiement. In any regard, who gets to determine what is “brutal” and whats not. They didn’t offer a key now did they?
I’m talking about percentages of death in those statistics - not the brutality of the beatings the received.
this last post just proved to me you’re tyring to be right and not actually have a dialogue. So, ill keep it moving to engage with others and someone else can..play fact check..with you.
Good question and response. Canada - kicking our ass in civil liberties since 1834.
And I’m so happy you acknowlege it’s a problem. Honestly, you’re the first to do it on this thread I do believe. As stated, a lot can be done with correctly naming a problem. I think it’s interesting that hate crimes actually have the intent right there. “hate”. Of note, Like Canada - our hate crime law includes gender as a class that can be discriminated against too - but to date no one has been convicted of a gender based hate crime (despite the many serial rapist/killers that have been caught :dubious: ).
I’m saying that because statistics show that gender based violence is real, to continue to not classify it and call it what it is continues the cycle. If someone has a lenghty rap sheet of crimes against women- I believe classifying it as hate is more for public awareness than for the criminal.
The results are the opposite of what the experimenters predicted. They thought men would be more brutal than women in how they killed their partners. Instead, women were more brutal than men in how they killed their partners.
Which, as I said, tends to mitigate against what you claimed about men and their innate murderous rage. If men were inherently more rageful, then one would expect them to be more brutal. But they aren’t. So that tends to disprove the theory about rageful men.
Yes, I am quite sure there are lots of people better qualified to do fact-checking than you.
If for no other reason than it will save time figuring out what “statics” are, or what “whopsided” means.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course they did.
The study covered that too. They found that gay couples had the highest homicide rate, lesbian couples the lowest, and heterosexual couples in between. Which makes perfect sense: men are more likely to kill, so a male/male pairing is more likely to result in a killing than a male/female one, which is more likely to result in a killing than a female/female one. More men = more killing. Your gender-of-the-victim basis for violence is bunk.
But it does state that men are more likely to kill their parners? and you did just confirm that? Right? That is what I’m seeing.
And thanks for putting this back into perspective because I did say gender based violence and we got off on a tangent with the partner dynamics. Though I also talked about rape and murder. SO kudos to you 
So we have concluded that:
men are more violent in* all *relationships
women are protected as a class in the hate crime law yet
no one has ever been brought up on hate crimes involving gender
men do have an anger/violence problem that is overlooked when examining statistics
also on whopsided: http://www.williamsonherald.com/home?id=80648
this is a great documentary on the issue: Tough Guise
Here’s why it shouldn’t be so:
A woman is punched, knocked down and kicked on the ground. Right now, that is always a crime (assault and battery). But there are some situations which make it worse and need to be dealt with differently than simple assault:
a) The attack was due to her race/religion/sexual orientation/gender and part of a pattern of attacks seeking to restrict her and others of the same race/religion/sexual orientation/gender to secondary status.
b) The attack was carried out by her domestic partner, with whom she lives, shares finances, possibly children, and on whom she she may be dependent for survival.
Both of those conditions require those crimes to be treated differently. But they are not the same. If we abolished domestic abuse laws and just decided to treat DV as hate crimes, it would make it worse for the victims. Domestic abuse laws are not perfect and can be improved in many ways. But they should be made identical to hate crime laws.
Men are more likely to kill, period. Ten times more likely, in fact. Mostly they kill other men, per FBI data, 2008 had 10,582 male murder victims and 3,158 female ones.
Which gender needs protection, again?
Yes; men are more violent in virtually all arenas.
This is evidence that women aren’t targeted for being women, relative to how often people are (rarely) targeted for their race or sexual orientation.
Anger and violence aren’t interchangeable. Yes, men commit more violent crime.
No, the fact that men commit more violent crime is not overlooked when examining statistics. It is common knowledge.
Quite the opposite. Men are relentlessly told they are violent people. It’s in our movies, it’s in our music, it’s in our art, and it’s in our statistics. On the other hand, women in art who commit violence are universally heroines. I can’t possibly imagine how you think this is overlooked by our society.
BTW, I’m just curious, are you registered for the Selective Service? If not, why not?