If you live in New York state, you may have seen the poster above plastered on a bus shelter; or you may have seen it posted somewhere on the internet. The message is pretty simple, and it’s sad that it has to be said: kids are pretty impressionable, so teach your sons to treat women with basic respect.
The purpose of the ad campaign, sponsored by the New York state Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, is pretty clear as well: teaching boys respect for women lessens the chances that they will abuse women as adults.
Numerous studies have found that men with sexist attitudes towards women are more likely to try to control their wives or girlfriends with physical abuse. Indeed, one recent study even found that brief exposure to sexist jokes made men more inclined to brush off violence against women, at least amongst men with sexist attitudes to begin with.
Speaking of which, the sexist jokes over at A Voice for Men have unveiled a hilarious new “meme,” which just happens to be inspired by the “awaiting instructions” PSAs we’ve been discussing. And here it is:
The logic here is airtight: because some women get drunk and urinate in public, women don’t deserve respect.
I guess men never get drunk and urinate in public, or ever do anything vaguely embarrassing that gets caught on camera?
Is it really asking too much to respect people as people, foibles and all?
“People the victim knew” is also not the same thing as “the victim’s romantic partner”.
i know. there was a partner section, but i don’t know what the definition of domestic violence is (we generaly think of it was partner violence, but is it more of like people in your household?) so i was going with the more general defintion.
so is it household violence (like roommate hurting other roomate) or like romantic partner in specific?
ack posted too soon
for clarification, i was assuming it was household. i don’t know why tho. 😐 It’s what my brain assumed the definition is.
“People the victim knew” has a very low bar. It can be someone you’ve spoken to a couple of times.
ah
should i average out the partner/ex partner ones then?
::backs off at great speed::
Don’t ask me maths questions, I can’t even add up in my head!
@Fade
Those stats doesn’t apply domestic violence because they only differentiate between victims murdered by strangers vs those murdered by people they know. People known to a victim can include relatives, friends, neighbors, co-workers, criminal accomplices etc
Domestic Violence means there is or was an intimate relationship.
For the purposes Travis was attempting to use those stats for only partner or ex-partner violence is relevant.
Ninja’d by a gang of ninjas.
Ah, actually, I’m not sure forming those percentages is stastistically valid, Fade. After all, they depend on *two* factors: The number of victims which died in homicides, but also the number of victims who died in other categories of murder. If you change the latter factor, the percentages change as well… even though that latter factor has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Or in other words, why is it relevant for the comparison of female and male homicide victim rates that apparently way, way more men died in other categories of murder?
Of course, this is only about homicides and not domestic violence in general. Also, homicide means any kill “at home”, I think, so we have no data at all about who the perpetrators are. Male on male homicides exist, obviously.
beware the gang of ninjas
haha, i’m getting i may have bitten off more than i can chew. 😛
The table was talking about homicides…
atm i’m trying to figure out a) what that table travis linked to means and b) what he thinks it means that it would prove his point.
This is hilarious, and I <3 you all.
Except for travis, who can't logic to save his life.
No, homicide does not mean that the victim died at home. FFS.
Ugh. Yes, no worry, Fade. It seems I’m not quite understanding everything myself. Yes, it’s all homicides, silly me… but my point still stands. Since percentages always depend on two factors, and one of those has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I don’t think forming percentages for reasons of comparison is statistically valid here.
I *think* what Travis means is simply the higher number of male homicide victims. But for once, homicide is not the same as domestic violence, and even from the “acquainted with suspect” numbers you can’t deduce a domestic violence rate…
But interesting talking points without the use of mathematics on page 83 of the England/Wales pdf… Apparently, while there is a significant amount of male victims of “partner abuse” (and now that should be a clear definition), there were still about half as many again female victims (5% to 7% or 4% to 6%). Of course, if we figure in that under-reporting is probably even worse for male victims, those numbers might come out more equal, but of course we can’t know for sure. And a difference of 50% more reported female victims is not that easily bridged. Forms of abuse, and also stalking, are the same with both genders, it seems.
On page 87 it reports how many men and women report as ever having experienced domestic abuse in their lives so far: 30% of the women, 23% of the men. Again, if we factor in likely under-reporting… hm. Unsurprisingly, the number of women who have reported having experienced sexual assaults is way higher, though.
And the raw material tables starting at page 99… yeah, I think I leave those to you, heh.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/intimate/ipv.cfm
Intimate Partner Violence in the United States
by Shannan Catalano, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician (Bureau of Justice)
(The author relies on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).)
Violence between intimates includes –
homicides, rapes, robberies, and assaults committed by intimates.
Intimate relationships involve –
current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends, including same sex relationships.
Intimates are distinguished from –
– other relatives (parent, child, sibling, grandparent, in-law, cousin)
– acquaintances (friend, co-worker, neighbor, schoolmate, someone known)
– strangers (anyone not previously known by the victim)
GENDER
Females are more likely than males to experience nonfatal intimate partner violence.
On average between 2001 and 2005, nonfatal intimate partner victimizations represented —
22% of nonfatal violent victimizations against females age 12 or older
4% of nonfatal violent victimizations against males age 12 or older.
—-
For homicides, intimate partners committed —
30% of homicides of females.
5% of homicides of males.
The page breaks down the stats in a very clear way, I just can’t copy and paste because of the format.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/intimate/victims.cfm
fromafar2013, and of course the severity of the abuse makes a big difference in trying to figure out what sort of services victims need. Typically only those who’ve suffered extreme violence at their partner’s hands will go to a shelter; these people are overwhelmingly women.
The MRAs who demand an equal number of shelters for men because DV is supposedly equal are in fact imagining am equal demand for male shelters that isn’t there. As it is, shelters for women generally also offer off-site shelter for men, in the form of hotel vouchers.
But the MRAs have fetishised the idea of male shelters on the grounds that if women have them we gotta have them too. Not that they’ve undertaken any serious efforts to set any up, aside from Earl Silverman, who set one up in his home that served a tiny handful of men and which other MRAs provided scant support to while he was still alive. CAFE has raised some money for a “men’s center” since his death but they have nowhere near enough to run a shelter and it’s really unclear what on earth their “men’s center” is going to actually accomplish.
If MRAs actually cared about male victims of DV, they would work with DV experts and conduct studies/surveys to figure out what services that male DV victims actually would benefit from the most. I rather doubt that male shelters would be at the top of the list.
A big part of the reason that shelters for women exist is economic, too. As usual, the MRA failure to understand that you can’t just flip the genders on everything and go “gotcha” means that they’re no help at all to the men who could actually use some.
Trolls always seem to pull this “ha-ha, I don’t care” shit when they’re getting their assess handed to them.
Not only that, but after they’ve posted walls of text about the thing they supposedly don’t care about.
Octo, if you’re going to argue:
Then you can’t turn around and state:
You can’t have it both ways, both these sets of statistics use categories based on the relationship of the person to the killer/abuser. If it’s wrong to do it for homicide (hint: it’s not wrong) then it would be wrong to apply the same categorical breakdown to abuse. A problem would occur if these categories weren’t mutually exclusive and there was double-counting, but they are mutually exclusive so that problem doesn’t occur.
Fade’s analysis was perfectly good, including the use of averaging.
This type of comment makes me still question whether you’re a troll:
How the fuck do you know that under-reporting is “probably even worse” for male victims and, if it was, that it would have a significant as opposed to marginal effect on the overall results?
The stalking finding is likely to be related to the definition, which is quite a low bar:
If they had use degrees of stalking, and frequency of occurrence, they might have found gender differences. It is not clear to me whether if a person has experienced multiple instances of stalking (i.e. has had more than one stalker) that this would be counted appropriately in the statistics.
The bit around force is this, in more detail: The difference between male and female partner abuse victims’ experience of force (both minor and severe) was not statistically significant. For example, 29 per cent of male partner abuse victims and 27 per cent of female partner abuse victims experienced severe force.
That is, the force information was only collected on victims of partner. So because “four per cent of men and six per cent of women” said they experienced partner abuse, * more* women experienced force overall, because the base rate is higher.
So this interpretation of yours:
is wrong.
Pfffft. Troll, please. If you really didn’t care, you wouldn’t have made a stink here in the first place. What you’re really saying is that you don’t understand the issue, and you’re up against people who do, and it’s humiliating to face the fact that you actually have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Best way to deal with that embarrassment is to learn the facts and not repeat it. But if you’re anything like all the other trolls who don’t stick the flounce here, I bet you’ll just be back to dig your hole that much deeper.
“You can’t have it both ways, both these sets of statistics use categories based on the relationship of the person to the killer/abuser. If it’s wrong to do it for homicide (hint: it’s not wrong) then it would be wrong to apply the same categorical breakdown to abuse. A problem would occur if these categories weren’t mutually exclusive and there was double-counting, but they are mutually exclusive so that problem doesn’t occur. ”
Fade formed percentages: Percent of the homicide cases where the victim was acquainted with the suspect out of all homicide cases. That percentage is in fact considerably higher for female victims. But it’s statistically meaningless, because such a percentage is of course dependant on two factors: 1) the absolute number of homicide cases where the victim was acquainted with the suspect and 2) the absolute number of homicide cases, period. Or, you could also formulate it as being dependent on 1) the absolute number of homicide cases where the victim was acquainted with the suspect and 2) the absolute number of all other homicide cases. Now, 2) is irrelevant to anything here, yet it influences those percentages, obviously. You’ll get a higher percentage of homicide cases where the victim was acquainted with the suspect for women than for men simply because there are much less female homicide victims than male homicide victims in other categories. So Fade’s comparison doesn’t actually tell us much.
That is what I criticized there. Unless a Statistics-Equivalent Person to Fibinachi arrives here 😉 I do think the comparison Fade made is simply not statistically meaningful, for above mentioned reason.
Have you met Argenti?
WTF???
How the hell is the absolute number of homicide percentages irrelevant, when Fade was estimating the percentage of homicide victims killed by someone they knew? Of course this will be estimated off the total number of homicide victims, because that is what Fade was interested in.
Fade took:
– the number of homicides with female (male) victims
– the number of homicides with female (male) victims where the victim knew the killer.
The second is a subset of the first. So this comment of yours ” You’ll get a higher percentage of homicide cases where the victim was acquainted with the suspect for women than for men simply because there are much less female homicide victims than male homicide victims in other categories” is fucking wrong, because the denominator is already a subset.
Taking one example from Fade’s post:
In all calculations there, it’s only counting *female* victims. The final result being a percentage takes the *gender difference in the raw homicide count* into account.
Fuck off for telling me I can’t do statistics. And fuck your smiley face.