Uh, right. “No.”
To answer the question of whether I’m an idiot, yes.
In fact, I think we may need a corollary to Betteridge. Whenever Quartz asks a question with a what about the men agenda, the answer is probably no.
You might both be assholes at times, but only one of you was right.
Once again, that is not what I said. I said those things about your post #36. I don’t know why you keep referring to your post #37 when I specifically mentioned the actual numbers that were only involved in your post #36 correction.
Fair enough, I’ll try to do the same thing next time around.
The two posts are obviously part of the same calculation & explanation.
You are astonishingly stubborn in your desperate persistence to try to find something wrong with my posts. At this point, you are reduced to criticizing me for being too concerned with making sure the calculations were exactly correct, right?
I’m done with this petulant immature nonsense. If you actually have any questions about the analysis here, I’ll still be happy to answer them, otherwise I’m done here.
I remain disappointed.
I worked for a domestic violence shelter for many years. When I first arrived there and began to look at the grants and marketing materials we put out, I saw that we were grossly over estimating the numbers of women killed by DV. Higher numbers made us look good, brought in more donations, etc. We incorrectly used the uniform crime statistics put out by the FBI. We also counted repeat clients as if they were individuals. Don’t get me wrong. One person, be they male, female, other who is killed by a friend, loved one or roommate is too many, but I was too loyal to the truth to let it keep on. Thankfully, we got a new director. I explained the discrepancies. She let me use the correct numbers. Problem solved. But I never have faith in the numbers I see from social service agencies. Or pretty much anyone anymore.
Yes it is. You say so yourself:
Welcome back!
36% is the output of a calculation, not the input.
Do you agree with this:
Of all people murdered by someone close to them, 64% of those people are women.
That is, take 100 people murdered by someone close to them. Of those 100 people, on average, 64 will be women, 36 will be men.
This is even more surprising, since only 20% of people murdered are women, so their being the majority of people killed by someone close is really out of proportion. Agreed?
Quartz, do you understand the difference between the following?
(1) Of all murders where perpetrator is close, proportion where victim male?
(2) Of all murders where victim is male, proportion where perpetrator is close?
For your calculation, you need (2), but you are mistakenly using (1).
(2) is 8%.
Go back and study post #37 carefully.
No. Therein lies the crux of the issue. As I read it, 64% of women who are killed are killed by someone close to them. I.e. of 100 women killed, 64 will be killed by someone close to them; of 100 men killed, 36 will be killed by someone close.
But the number of men killed vastly outnumbers the number of women killed so the 36% of men is larger than the 64% of women.
And, as has been explained several times, your reading is wrong.
You claim incorrectly that chart 3 shows:
Of all murders where victim is female, proportion where perpetrator is close = 64%
Of all murders where victim is male, proportion where perpetrator is close = 36%
But this interpretation must be wrong. These are proportions of different wholes, so they would not add to 100%. They would not be shown on a bar chart that shows how a whole divides up into different parts.
What chart 3 actually shows is:
Of all murders where perpetrator is close, proportion where victim is female = 64%
Of all murders where perpetrator is close, proportion where victim is male = 36%
Consider the following analogy:
Of all male cats, proportion that are black? 12%
Of all female cats, proportion that are black? 17%
These are not proportions of the same whole, do not add to 100%, and would not be shown as subdivisions on a single bar chart that is intended to show proportions of the same whole.
Of all black cats, proportion that are male? 52%
Of all black cats, proportion that are female? 48%
These are proportions of the same whole, they do add to 100%, and could appropriately be shown as a subdivisions on one bar chart.
Right, thank you.
…and so, I guess the BBC really got this right. Jeez, it really is much more dangerous for women around their own supposed loved ones.
It’s fair to note that in absolute numbers, and taken globally including lawless nations, by far the largest number of murders overall are male-on-male committed by strangers. However, I think this is a somewhat different social phenomenon, with different solutions: the rule of law overall, gang and drug violence, etc.
Physical violence by a domestic partner or family member is a somewhat different phenomenon requiring different solutions. It’s particularly terrible when victims of escalating domestic violence cannot escape, when their pleas for help are ignored by their society and by the police; and the victims of this type of violence are predominantly women.
It’s definitely true that men live more dangerous lives than women overall – not just war, but they typically work in the more dangerous professions as well. There are far more male coal miners than women. Men have a lower life expectancy.
So what? That wasn’t the point of the BBC article and it wasn’t what Quartz was trying to dispute. The article was about how dangerous it is for women in the home, how dangerous their supposed loved ones are to them. Their point was that it’s shocking that, even though men make up 80% of the people murdered, women make up 64% of the people murdered by someone close them.
Quartz questioned this basic premise and thought that the BBC was making things look worse for women than they actually are. He was wrong about that. I’d love to see more of an acknowledgement about how wrong this thread was from the get-go than “Right, thank you”.
For example, if I posted an article claiming that the sky was blue and I said, well, I think they used the wrong filters when they took the picture. I think the sky is green. Then, you come along and patiently explain that they took accurate pictures, and I came back and argued again. Then, you patiently explained once more how wrong I was. When I finally got it, I would be all, “:smack: Right! It’s not the sky that’s green, it’s the ocean. I don’t know what I was thinking. Jeez. Thanks for your patience with me, and obviously BBC had it right all along. Never mind me.”
It’s especially chilling because there is so much social pressure on women to constrain their lives/career opportunities because of “stranger danger”–even in nice suburban areas, women are regularly given the message that it’s not safe to go outside alone after dark, to walk or jog. Lots of women don’t feel comfortable travelling alone, because they feel at risk in a hotel room. Lots of women don’t work late because they are scared to walk to the parking lot alone. Women feel limited to where they can live and how they can travel because of stranger danger.
These fears are the result of constant messaging that these activities ARE unacceptably dangerous, that women who were killed in these circumstances showed very poor judgment, that it’s a simple fact that the world isn’t safe. The reality is that the most dangerous place for a woman is not jogging in a public park, it’s going home.