this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
115 points (96.0% liked)

News

23397 readers
4108 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

An estimated 140 women and girls across the world die at the hands of their partner or family member every day, according to new global estimates on femicide by the UN.

The report by UN Women found 85,000 women and girls were killed intentionally by men in 2023, with 60% (51,100) of these deaths committed by someone close to the victim. The organisation said its figures showed that, globally, the most dangerous place for a woman to be was in her home, where the majority of women die at the hands of men.

Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, UN Women’s deputy executive director, said: “What the data is telling us is that it is the private and domestic sphere’s of women’s lives, where they should be safest, that so many of them are being exposed to deadly violence.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 38 minutes ago) (2 children)

Posting this from another thread.


It's a shame that this data is being presented this poorly, because this is a really important issue that deserves attention. None of the figures presented in the linked article have the proper context to understand them. Even the UN report itself does not present their findings well.

So, for instance, 140 women per day is of course more than the ideal number of zero, but there are billions of people on this planet. To actually quantify the gender imbalance of this number, we need to compare it to the number of men who are victims in the same way. From the report:

Globally, approximately 51,100 women and girls were killed by their intimate partners or other family members [...out of...] 85,000 women and girls killed intentionally during the year [...] In other words, an average of 140 women and girls worldwide lost their lives every day at the hands of their partner or a close relative.

The report does not offer corresponding numbers for male (or non-binary) victims. It does, however, say that 11.8% of male victims and 60.2% of female victims are killed by partners or other family members. It also acknowledges that 80% of all homicide victims are men and 20% women, which is beside the point as this is about domestic violence, but it will allow us to do some math to arrive at numbers to compare against.

  • 85,000 * 80/20 = 340,000 men killed total
  • 340,000 * 11.8% = 40,120 men killed by partners or family
  • so we are comparing 40,120 men with 51,100 women
  • women are 27.4% more likely than men to be killed by partners or family.

...which should have been the headline. 27% more is massive! Domestic violence is a huge issue, and women are more likely to suffer from it!

There is no need to obfuscate the numbers to be less honest. The honest numbers themselves are shocking enough, and scientifically literate readers won't dismiss your credibility along with your cause. I look forward to future UN reports communicating these horrifying statistics a bit more clearly.


Edit: Wtf is wrong with ya'll? This article is only about one kind of violence that women are more suseptible too. That's it. No one is trying to say men aren't getting hurt, or even that women being harmed is the #1 cause of women's death. Someone has a post like, "Well, women are more likely to slip, so that's more dangerous, so there!" Like, okay??? Men are usually the victims of violent crimes and homicides, but when they looked at home based partner abuse, women come out on top. Like, damn.

Here's some articles on men since apparently we can't have an article talking about something specific. ~~I guess I should leave a comment on all of these saying "What about the girls!"~~ :

Men and boys are also victims of sex trafficking

CDC page about male victims

Men are less likely to fight back (South Africa specific)

Men are less likely to report abuse.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I'm confused - how are the numbers they provided less honest? You came up with a different stat than what they're focusing on, but I don't see how that makes it more honest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 49 minutes ago

Well, the way they initially presented has people coming in saying "Well, men get hurt too" like they're trying to say they don't. The way this first explained the numbers is saying, "Hey, they're 27% more likely to be harmed." All the person did was turn the data into a percentage.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It's a dishonest representation. It ignores violence against men entirely, and makes it look like women in relationships should expect to be killed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 52 minutes ago (1 children)

How is it dishonest? It's looking at one specific kind of harm. It just happens men aren't the highest statistic for this kind of violence. That's literally all it's saying. "When it comes to relationship violence, women tend to be victims more often than men." If this was a report about suicide and they were ignoring men, I would get the issue.

It's like an article talking about smokers being more likely to get lung cancer. It's not the only way to get it, but they're focusing on smokers. We wouldn't go, "Well they're ignoring all the miners." They just happen to not be the focus of that study.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)

Context is important in statistics, which is why the Mark Twain quote is so popular. An honest article about smoking and cancer is going to say smokers have an 80% higher chance of cancer than non-smokers, showing the relationship between the two groups, not showing how much of a single group falls into a single category.

Focusing on a subset of a subset to get a scary sounding number is a dishonest tactic to get an emotional response rather than a logical one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 minutes ago

The only way they could get this information is to compare it, that's why they're focusing on women, they happened to come out in top. If they said "smokers have an 80% higher chance of cancer", I'm taking it that they compared it to people who don't smoke, they don't need to tell me that because I can infer it. If I get a report that says "men are 50% more likely to die in combat" I wouldn't sit and go, "compared to what? Women? CHILDREN!? Why are they just focusing on men, like women don't die in combat! They're just showing scary numbers!" they're focusing on the group that came out in top and delving into that. I don't know how you would read the title of the article and be surprised that that is what they are focusing on.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago

Thank you.

To be fair to the Guardian, their headline is substantive, compared to the other article that just gave a number without context. The report does clearly support the assertion that on average home is the most dangerous place for women to be attacked.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

The leasing non-disease causes for death in women are:

  1. Falling (primarily elderly women)
  2. Unintentional poisoning (primarily middle aged women)
  3. Car accidents (primarily younger women)
  4. Suicide
  5. Homicide at 5th place

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683079/

And thats ignoring, of course, all the actual leading causes of death which are various diseases, primarily heart diseases of course, and COVID.

Mind you that still does indicate that home is where most people die, but it's not homicide you should be worried about.

It's your stairs and... garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must.

So I guess what ladies should really be wary of is their stairs, ladders, and those leftovers that you're not sure about from the weekend.

Just as an example, for every 1 homicide victims in women aged 20-39, there were (in the same group):

  • 4.5 unintentional poisoning deaths
  • 2.7 traffic accident deaths
  • 2.1 suicides

And among women aged 70+ years, there were no homicides in the data, but over 60% of injury related deaths were caused by falling. Just... Falling. Not homicide, just "mum had a fall yesterday and had to see the doctor"

I suppose that really drives home how important building codes are and stuff like life alert, for old folks...

If you account for the actual leading causes of death though, where you really outta be wary of are fast food chains, public transit, and low ventilation workspaces with sneezy coworkers. That's what'll actually be most likely to kill you...

I guess with skip the dishes being a thing though, that's still home being the most "dangerous" place anyways, /shrug

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It’s your stairs and… garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must.

Drug overdoses.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 58 minutes ago

Or suicide, but the family has enough influence to get it ruled accidental.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

This data is worthless without the corresponding rate for men.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I'm confused why they're singling out women in this. 60% of women died from a family member or partner.

I'm honestly surprised it's not higher. Who else would kill them? And do you not think similiar if not higher numbers are true for men?

Would it be more comforting if the statistic were "60% of women who were killed, were killed by a total stranger, for no reason"?

If anything, the 40% scares me more.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 hours ago

This is specifically about intimate partner violence, not a study of every cause of death. They're focusing on women because the numbers are not higher for men. If they were the same, there would be little need to distinguish the two, but they noticed a tend. That's the whole point of this is to highlight that women face a higher risk of harm at home, at the hands of someone they know, than men. That's it. They're not saying men don't also get abused and murdered, nor is it saying the other ways men die aren't valid.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

A United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report estimated that globally, while 81% of all homicide victims are males, 82% of intimate partner homicide victims are female and 64% of intimate partner/family-related homicide victims are female (UNODC 2019).

It was also estimated that around 1 in 3 (34%) women intentionally killed worldwide are killed by an intimate partner, however, there are large differences across regions. Oceania (which includes Australia) had the highest estimated proportion of women killed exclusively by intimate partners (42%) and Europe had the lowest (29%) (UNODC 2019).

https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/domestic-homicide

Sounds like for women partner/family is a bigger danger. So it’s not similar, women are higher.

Although men are disproportionately the largest homicide demographic overall.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 hours ago

Not trying to downplay the problem of domestic violence, but the title seems misleading. Most people spend considerably more time at home, of course more women die that way. It's not like they're going into dark alleys for hours at a time, in which case I would expect the other statistics to go up.