So to be clear: you think that domestic violence against men could be similar to domestic violence against women, for instance? Are you actually saying that?
It is from factual statistics. Yes, I’m actually saying that.
There’s a reason you singled out emotional abuse, because if you mentioned any of the other kinds, it would be pretty obvious how silly your argument was, wouldn’t it?
Factual statistics say otherwise, that my argument isn’t silly.
I thought perpetuating gender role stereotypes and even prioritizing them over data was something a slrpnk.net user would be unlikely to do?..
Also I’m following the example of that other person and disengaging.
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
Also every fucking police service publishes some stats.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”
Which is exactly why they rely on anonymous survey results rather than police reports to get these statistics, which you would understand if you looked into Excrubulent’s sources before immediately going into defense mode and jumping down their throat because they acknowledged that women being wary of men is not irrational behavior.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
To acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!” only when violence against women is discussed is to dismiss and silence the trauma experienced by all domestic abuse survivors regardless of gender, assume that there is some “clue” they all missed to avoid being abused, and that anyone who responds to that trauma by being wary of people with similar broad-strokes profiles is treating unfairly everyone that does not exhibit this explicit “clue”. And that is victim-blaming, because there is just no way to know at first glance.
Those might sound like hefty assumptions but I gotta be honest with you, I truly do not understand what outcome you are trying to reach by rehashing this, over and over, other than silencing discourse that you find damaging to your own ego and self-image, and, further, what rationale you could find to feel personally attacked by this discourse, other than simply not being able to empathize with fellow members of the human race that happen to belong to the opposite gender.
It is reasonable to be cautious as a woman until you can be sure that the man you are with is safe. You can argue that men should do the same if you truly believe that they experience the same risks. You cannot argue, however, that women are wrong or irrational for behaving this way without making sexist arguments. Which is probably why you people always stop short of making any actual actionable arguments.
And to clarify, because apparently we are unable to differentiate unless it is said explicitly; I’m talking about you, personally, and people that respond in this way to any mention of domestic abuse with acknowledgement that it is primarily experienced by women at the hands of men. I am not talking about ALL men.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
OK, suppose I agree, but what does this sentence add to this conversation? “More” doesn’t mean much.
o acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!”
OK, I won’t answer the rest because you are not arguing in good faith.
Lol. That is exactly my point. Thank you for confirming it.
“More” doesn’t mean much
In the context of this conversation and supported by the data provided earlier, yes it does.
you are not arguing in good faith.
Not really sure what it is about those two sentence fragments that suggest that my argument is not in good faith but I honestly don’t expect you to have any answers anyways beyond base knee-jerk reactions.
“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?
In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
Somebody should have taught you that claims are not supported by rhetoric.
It is from factual statistics. Yes, I’m actually saying that.
Factual statistics say otherwise, that my argument isn’t silly.
I thought perpetuating gender role stereotypes and even prioritizing them over data was something a slrpnk.net user would be unlikely to do?..
Also I’m following the example of that other person and disengaging.
“factual statistics” which are… nowhere to be seen.
You won’t be missed.
This is so dumb that I’ll return to comment.
The pic you posted says the same thing as I say about factual statistics. You’ll have to argue with yourself.
Also the first page in Google:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7658679/
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
and Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men with this - “The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,
that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.
Also every fucking police service publishes some stats.
Which is exactly why they rely on anonymous survey results rather than police reports to get these statistics, which you would understand if you looked into Excrubulent’s sources before immediately going into defense mode and jumping down their throat because they acknowledged that women being wary of men is not irrational behavior.
Men in general are more likely than women to be physically violent towards their partners, and women in general are more likely than men to be victims of physical abuse.
To acknowledge that is not to say all men are abusive, just as it is not to say that all women are abuse survivors. However, to jump in and go “not ALL men!!!” only when violence against women is discussed is to dismiss and silence the trauma experienced by all domestic abuse survivors regardless of gender, assume that there is some “clue” they all missed to avoid being abused, and that anyone who responds to that trauma by being wary of people with similar broad-strokes profiles is treating unfairly everyone that does not exhibit this explicit “clue”. And that is victim-blaming, because there is just no way to know at first glance.
Those might sound like hefty assumptions but I gotta be honest with you, I truly do not understand what outcome you are trying to reach by rehashing this, over and over, other than silencing discourse that you find damaging to your own ego and self-image, and, further, what rationale you could find to feel personally attacked by this discourse, other than simply not being able to empathize with fellow members of the human race that happen to belong to the opposite gender.
It is reasonable to be cautious as a woman until you can be sure that the man you are with is safe. You can argue that men should do the same if you truly believe that they experience the same risks. You cannot argue, however, that women are wrong or irrational for behaving this way without making sexist arguments. Which is probably why you people always stop short of making any actual actionable arguments.
And to clarify, because apparently we are unable to differentiate unless it is said explicitly; I’m talking about you, personally, and people that respond in this way to any mention of domestic abuse with acknowledgement that it is primarily experienced by women at the hands of men. I am not talking about ALL men.
OK, suppose I agree, but what does this sentence add to this conversation? “More” doesn’t mean much.
OK, I won’t answer the rest because you are not arguing in good faith.
Lol. That is exactly my point. Thank you for confirming it.
In the context of this conversation and supported by the data provided earlier, yes it does.
Not really sure what it is about those two sentence fragments that suggest that my argument is not in good faith but I honestly don’t expect you to have any answers anyways beyond base knee-jerk reactions.
Good for you, some day you’ll realize that you can write anything on the Web not making it one inch closer to the reality
You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?
In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?
This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.
Somebody should have taught you that claims are not supported by rhetoric.