Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame are these guys 12 years old? domestic violence empathy deficit evil sexy ladies evil women men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA

A Voice for Men boldly opposes respect for women

Hardly a controversial message, you wouldn't think.
Hardly a controversial message, you wouldn’t think.

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:

From A Voice for Men. I've blurrred the women's faces.
From A Voice for Men. I’ve blurrred the women’s faces.

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?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

413 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

“People the victim knew” is also not the same thing as “the victim’s romantic partner”.

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

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?

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf
7 years ago

“People the victim knew” has a very low bar. It can be someone you’ve spoken to a couple of times.

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

ah

should i average out the partner/ex partner ones then?

kittehserf
7 years ago

::backs off at great speed::

Don’t ask me maths questions, I can’t even add up in my head!

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

@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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

For the purposes Travis was attempting to use those stats for only partner or ex-partner violence is relevant.

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

Ninja’d by a gang of ninjas.

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

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.

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

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.

cloudiah
7 years ago

This is hilarious, and I <3 you all.

Except for travis, who can't logic to save his life.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

No, homicide does not mean that the victim died at home. FFS.

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

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.

Brooked
Brooked
7 years ago

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

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

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.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

Hahaha you guys are fucking hysterical I can’t even just whatever. Just pretend I was some misogynist troll and go on living your life. I really don’t care

Trolls always seem to pull this “ha-ha, I don’t care” shit when they’re getting their assess handed to them.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Not only that, but after they’ve posted walls of text about the thing they supposedly don’t care about.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Octo, if you’re going to argue:

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.

Then you can’t turn around and state:

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%).

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:

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.

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:

Stalking: more than one incident of obscene/threatening unwanted letters or phone calls, waiting or loitering around home or workplace, following or watching, or interfering with or damaging personal property carried out by any person.

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:

Forms of abuse, and also stalking, are the same with both genders, it seems.

is wrong.

Bina
Bina
7 years ago

Hahaha you guys are fucking hysterical I can’t even just whatever. Just pretend I was some misogynist troll and go on living your life. I really don’t care

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.

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

“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.

katz
7 years ago

Unless a Statistics-Equivalent Person to Fibinachi arrives here

Have you met Argenti?

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

WTF???

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.

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:

female victims: 2559/11 = 233 rounded

female victims acquainted w/ suspect: 1778/11 = 162 rounded

1778/2559 = approxamitely 69 percent of female victims of homocide were murdered by someone they knew.

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.

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.

Fuck off for telling me I can’t do statistics. And fuck your smiley face.

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

I obviously (reading comprehension!) meant irrelevant to the point of the comparison. The whole discussion was started by Travis’ claim that there is no difference in the amount of domestic violence men and women suffer. People then began to take a look at the sources he provided. So, Fade made a comparison between the male “percentage of homicides where the victim knew the suspect out of all homicides” and the female “percentage of homicides where the victim knew the suspect out of all homicides”.

However, this has no informative power about whether one gender suffers more violence, and also no informative power about whether one gender is more likely to suffer violence at the hands of those they know, because that percentage also depends on the number of all *other* homicides members of that gender suffer. Two variables are at play here, but the second has nothing to do with the discussion/the point Fade wanted to make.

As I’ve said, if we were to follow the logic of Fade’s comparison, then this would mean that women are more likely to face death from somebody they know, simply because men are way more likely to be killed in other categories of homicide. Obviously, such a causal relation does not exist.

Also:
“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.”
No, that’s just… wrong. Just because a is a subset of b doesn’t make b not an own variable (because it also depends on other subsets independent of a)! With statements like that, yeah I think I can tell you at least that you have some faults in your statistical arguments.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

We actually have a statistics equivalent person to Fibinachi
Zir tricks is to be able to do stats in
a quick manner, able and matching
with neat numbers lined up as a win
Google, you might
If you value stats tight
The diagrams of Manboobz users yore
We’ve all all sorts of stat before,
Which Argenti argued ably as ample affirmations of our good intentions and wide spread of nations, but I digress —
For this case, Holmes, I offer some words of ill made filler rhyme

If one adjusts for acquaintence , it’s a matter of statistical equivalence
that the preference of killing someone in cold blood of self defence
is reliant on a variance of factors, ambient and latent

But statistical percentages of totals tells us much,
it’s a touch awry to claim that it’s a useless game
When the breakdown works out to what percentage of who suffered what
and who was killed by someone they knew
We are, after all, looking at who someone once called a friend slew.

“It’s dependent on the total number of cases!”
Aye, that’s the rub, that’s what percentages are for
Therefore
If we find cases galore of aquaintences murdered by the score
I must implore
That that the total number of cases matteres not a wit
to wit, the hit, that’s just it, 2 outta 20 or 20 outta 200
is ten percent last I numbered
(Speak good english do well, often
in great language words get my thoughts in)

For instance, I beseech!

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.

Good grief, you’ll get a higher count of acquaintence kills
when the woman dies
because… more women are brought low by the ill wills
of people they knew before they became stills?

Well, yes, them’s the words we use
That’s what ’em words mean

T’is hardly a surprise, t’is the point of the exercise!

What it tells us is this much: If you know someone, and you’re a woman made
always bring a back up shotgun for any date
Or that date’ll be the gravestone touch

Morbid, much (I joke, a touch)

Now, I grant you a thing, Octo!
It’s possible that with enough to
Balance all numbers in all ways entire
The situation might not be so dire
In a perfectly equal world all scales aligned
Much maligned “friends” might be less inclined
to find their wills defined by murderous minds
in that gender-specific violence of certain kinds
would go towards a more middle ground, and we, sitting here, would divine
that the decline of internecine homicide, species wide
would be more in line with our fond wishes for equal treatment along all lines

Until then, the blight is that the truth offers a different plight.

(Or to be less nattering; total number of homicides broken down by gender lines and homicide type is exactly the point, and if we witness statistically significant higher percentages of one kind of action against one kind of group, that means something, despite any other situations of that group, unless our data sets are skewed by unrecognized factors (say, male on male killings in combat zones wasn’t classified as “homicide”, or some such))

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Back to reading comprehension, Octo you said:

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?

and then followed that with

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…

Which focused the conversation on homicides, which is what Fade was assessing.

Now you say:

So, Fade made a comparison between the male “percentage of homicides where the victim knew the suspect out of all homicides” and the female “percentage of homicides where the victim knew the suspect out of all homicides”.

However, this has no informative power about whether one gender suffers more violence, and also no informative power about whether one gender is more likely to suffer violence at the hands of those they know, because that percentage also depends on the number of all *other* homicides members of that gender suffer. Two variables are at play here, but the second has nothing to do with the discussion/the point Fade wanted to make.

which is true, but the conversation on homicide has been around the accuracy with which Fade performed the male/female homicide estimates.

We’ve all agreed that homicides =/= domestic abuse.

What Fade’s statistics do is show that there are gender differences in who a victim is most likely to be murdered by.

So back strictly to homicide, you said:

As I’ve said, if we were to follow the logic of Fade’s comparison, then this would mean that women are more likely to face death from somebody they know, simply because men are way more likely to be killed in other categories of homicide. Obviously, such a causal relation does not exist.

FFS, women *are* more likely to face death from someone they know, compared to males. What the hell is your point?

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Obviously

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

“Good grief, you’ll get a higher count of acquaintence kills
when the woman dies
because… more women are brought low by the ill wills
of people they knew before they became stills?”
Actually no, if you look at the statistics, the *absolute* number is higher for men 😉 That is what Fade tried to set in context, by showing that while this is true, the percentage of homicides where the victim knew the suspect out of all homicides is higher for women. But,.. what does this actually tell us? That percentage is only higher because less women are killed in other homicides, so it has little informative power.

“FFS, women *are* more likely to face death from someone they know, compared to males. What the hell is your point?”
I was never making a general point on that. I was only arguing statistical methodology. And apparently, in England and Wales in 2000-2011 what you say was not actually true:

“male victims acquainted w/ suspect: 2643″
female victims acquainted w/ suspect: 1778”

As said above, Fade tried to set that in context by forming those percentages, but actually, those percentages don’t tell us anything. The percentage is only higher for women because less women are killed in other homicides. Comparing absolute numbers of men and women killed by people they were acquainted with actually has way more informative value.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Is it just me, or is this entire “people they were acquainted with” a huge derail from the point that MRA trolls are lying/stupid/both when they claim domestic violence is evenly spread across the genders?

Fibinachi
7 years ago

“Good grief, you’ll get a higher count of acquaintence kills
when the woman dies
because… more women are brought low by the ill wills
of people they knew before they became stills?”
Actually no, if you look at the statistics, the *absolute* number is higher for men 😉 That is what Fade tried to set in context, by showing that while this is true, the percentage of homicides where the victim knew the suspect out of all homicides is higher for women. But,.. what does this actually tell us? That percentage is only higher because less women are killed in other homicides, so it has little informative power.

“FFS, women *are* more likely to face death from someone they know, compared to males. What the hell is your point?”
I was never making a general point on that. I was only arguing statistical methodology. And apparently, in England and Wales in 2000-2011 what you say was not actually true:

“male victims acquainted w/ suspect: 2643″
female victims acquainted w/ suspect: 1778″

As said above, Fade tried to set that in context by forming those percentages, but actually, those percentages don’t tell us anything. The percentage is only higher for women because less women are killed in other homicides. Comparing absolute numbers of men and women killed by people they were acquainted with actually has way more informative value.

Sorry, I’m… really confused now. I’d try to be clever or witty, but I’m just genuinely confused. You repeat that “The percentage is only higher for women because less women are killed in other homicides”, and, well… yes. Yeah. That’s.. the point? Am I misunderstanding something here? Is there something I am missing, that’s blindingly obvious to everyone else?

If… the percentage of one kind of homicide is higher than the others… that would exactly be because less people are killed by other kinds of homicide. It’s… I don’t… I can’t? The words? I… Sorry, it just fails to make much sense to me as to why this is a repeated point. If one kind of homicide has a higher percentage than the others, then, obviously, other kinds of homicide see less people being killed that way. It’s like a perfect tautology.

It’s like saying “Oh yeah, lots of people crash their car into a tree, but more people crash their car into a building, so, statistically, less people crash their car into a tree”. Yeah. Exactly.

… so what? If more women were killed by other kinds of homicide (Say, strangers. Say, pre-meditated murders), the conversations we would be having would be… “A lot of women sure seem to get killed by XXXX kind of homicide”.

The absolute numbers of deaths by kind / male female has no informative power beyond that absolute number. If a million men died, but only 1 % of those deaths where attributed to someone they know, and the rest was “From falling down the stairs”, that’d tell us: “Yikes. Safety rails!”

I… what… what is going on here? What conversations are we having? My brain is broken.

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

As I’ve said, if we were to follow the logic of Fade’s comparison, then this would mean that women are more likely to face death from somebody they know, simply because men are way more likely to be killed in other categories of homicide. Obviously, such a causal relation does not exist.

i admit to being a nooby at math, so i’ve been kind of laying low after that first foray into it, but… it was comparising homicides, not causes of death…

as far as I can tell, my main problem was a) not knowing exactly what domestic violence means (whether it’s violence in the household or partner violence, and also it not having “in victims household” separate from “people victim knew”) and b) not knowing what Travis thought the study would prove about domestic violence

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

Is it just me, or is this entire “people they were acquainted with” a huge derail from the point that MRA trolls are lying/stupid/both when they claim domestic violence is evenly spread across the genders?

haha, i’ve already mention this was due to me not knowing exactly what domestic violence means. ;P probably should’ve checked the definition *before* I did that math.

kittehserf
7 years ago

not knowing what Travis thought the study would prove about domestic violence

That one’s easy: the same as all MRAs spout. Women are just as violent as men! Why are there shelters for women and not men! Why are there shelters for women at all!

It’s not that they give a shit about actual violence toward men. They just want women to have no resources to protect themselves from male violence.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Fade, yeah, but Octo seems to want to take that and run with it. It’s become irritating for me, which your breakdown/questions weren’t. It’s reading like a troll’s red herring now.

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

“Sorry, I’m… really confused now. I’d try to be clever or witty, but I’m just genuinely confused. You repeat that “The percentage is only higher for women because less women are killed in other homicides”, and, well… yes. Yeah. That’s.. the point? Am I misunderstanding something here? Is there something I am missing, that’s blindingly obvious to everyone else?”

(ah, can somebody please tell me what the quoting code here is?)

The problem is… well, what do you want to tell us with that comparison? Usually, you don’t just form percentages, or do other math things to statistical raw material, unless you want to tell something. So, what exactly does the percentage Fade formed tell us? Well, since she’s here now – Fade, what exactly were you trying to say?

It appeared to me it was about using those homicide rate where the victim knew the suspect to derive a point about domestic violence, especially the comparison of men and women. But if that is so, then the comparison of those percentages has no informative value for that (since that percentage also depends on a second, unrelated factor), and instead comparing the absolute numbers (that is the absolute number of men being killed in homicides where they were acquainted with the suspect vs the absolute number of women being killed in homicides where they were acquainted with the suspect) makes much more sense. Because obv… surely (heh), the amount of men or women killed by strangers has no causal bearing on how likely either men or women are to be killed by people they know.

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

“Fade, yeah, but Octo seems to want to take that and run with it. It’s become irritating for me, which your breakdown/questions weren’t. It’s reading like a troll’s red herring now.”
The discussion only became so longwinded after Kiwi barged in here and made a BIG FUCKING POINT about my post. And since she attacked, yeah I take the liberty to defend myself.

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

So, what exactly does the percentage Fade formed tell us? Well, since she’s here now – Fade, what exactly were you trying to say?

using the already-admitted-to-be-wrong-definition, I was comparing the homicide rate proportionately against men and women by people they knew.

I assumed Travis was going to go along the lines of “well, it happens more to men!! Proportionately” but he may have been talking in raw numbers, which doens’t really make sense. I mean, if you have 5000 lamps and 5 of them break, and 10 kites and 3 break, way more kites are being broken than lamps per the same amount, but you could try to inaccurately phrase that as “lamps are in so much more danger of breaking than kites!” if you looked at raw numbers.

quote code is {blockquote} blah blah quote {/blockquote} but use instead of the curvy ones

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

* use the pointed ones! It got rid of my “<" ?! Why?!

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

The discussion only became so longwinded after Kiwi barged in here and made a BIG FUCKING POINT about my post

okay… i’m not kiwi, so I can’t know what they meant, but it seemed like they were critiquing your critique of my math? I mean, it just seemed to be like an innocent math discussion revolving around something that is admittedly off topic/ not incredibly on the point. They just disagreed with your POV?

Marie
Marie
7 years ago

I am not going to touch any of the math, because I kind of reaaalllyy suck at math, so have fun, the rest of you guys! 😀

@bina

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.

Hey, I could use that kind of entertainment from the troll 😛

@katz

Have you met Argenti?

Yay Aregenti! 😀 Ze even makes some of the math understandable for me, which is saying a lot.

@fibinachi

::applauds:: Nice poem 😀

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

Thanks… so, curvy…

I assumed Travis was going to go along the lines of “well, it happens more to men!! Proportionately” but he may have been talking in raw numbers, which doens’t really make sense. I mean, if you have 5000 lamps and 5 of them break, and 10 kites and 3 break, way more kites are being broken than lamps per the same amount, but you could try to inaccurately phrase that as “lamps are in so much more danger of breaking than kites!” if you looked at raw numbers.

Ah. I see your logic. But the problem is that the homicide rate itself is variable. It’s not set in stone that there will be this or that many homicides in a year. Continuing your analogy, you don’t start out with 5000 lamps. Rather, your shop receives, say, 200 blue lamps and 600 red lamps. Your neighbouring store receives 300 blue lamps and 1500 red lamps. Now, in your store a fourth of all lamps are blue, and in the neighbouring store only a sixth, but a customer will still have a better chance of finding a blue lamp in the neighbouring store, because there 100 blue lamps more there and the amount of red lamps doesn’t matter.

Or, to leave the area of analogies: Suppose there suddenly was a epidemic of gang violence breaking out in England and Wales. Homicides by strangers skyrocket as a result. This would not actually change the threat men or women face of being killed by people they know… and yet it would still skew the percentages you have formed. Since there is no causal relation between “homicides by people the victim was acquainted with” and “homicides by strangers”, you have to treat them as two independent factors, instead of looking at overall homicides – that number can raise or fall by either of the two factors.

I mean, it just seemed to be like an innocent math discussion revolving around something that is admittedly off topic/ not incredibly on the point.

Yeah, that’s how I saw it, too. Apparently, Kiwi disagreed.

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

no… i was saying kiwi was continuing the innocent math discussion :facepalm:

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

Yeah, well, not with a “fuck you” comment. That kinda isn’t “innocent” anymore.

Marie
Marie
7 years ago

@octo

Okay, I had to roll back a while to find this whole terrible ‘fuck you’ response, or whatever. And found

[octo:] 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.

[kiwi girl:]
Fuck off for telling me I can’t do statistics. And fuck your smiley face.

And..whining about Kiwi girl saying fuck you (teh horrors) aside, it seems like a reasonable response. Since you seemed to be implying you weren’t really going to be listening to anyone’s statistic analysis unless they came in above and beyond qualified (or known for being qualified, since I don’t actually know how much kiwi girl knows, just that she doesn’t have a reputation for being ‘statistics person’ like argent.) And, you know, yeah. You were kinda being a jerk. Because other people are allowed to argue with your analysis, Octo. Even if they aren’t known for being Super Awesome Statistics person.

Marie
Marie
7 years ago

*like Argenti, not argent. :/

Fade
Fade
7 years ago

i’m going to be honest, my brain kind of auto-filters out swear words. XD

*shrug* idk.

i’m not kiwi.

i assume they got mad, annoyed, or any other kind of emotion people have. they’re allowed to be mad. Especially since it seemed to be implying you were thinking like, some of us can’t do statistics (I mean, it did seem like you were insinuating only fibinachi could do the statistic thing and you wouldn’t trust the others of us).

but i’m gonna step out of this, b/c i think it’s officially not my business atm and i don’t wanna put words into kiwi’s mouth

Octo
Octo
7 years ago

The Fibinachi comment was actually a reference to another thread, where Fibinachi thoroughly schooled me on economics (something Kiwi knew). So it was actually meant as a reference to something where I was wrong… basically saying I could be wrong here, too, but unless that’s demonstrated to me, I will stick to what I said.

I’m not particularly upset about the fuck you, but yeah… calling that post innocent would go a bit far, don’t you think?

titianblue
titianblue
7 years ago

Octo, you’re still whiffing of troll to me. You seem eager to prove any of the commenters here wrong if you can, just happening to support known trolls and MRA myths. You try and set commenters against each other. You back-pedal on what your comments are saying while telling us that the problem is with our reading comprehension. And then you bounce onto a different thread and act like none of that has happened.

Walking, quacking, ducks.

I’m with Kiwi girl – prove you’re here in good faith or fuck off.