5 ms·

There's a reason he didn't provide a source: because it's not true. In 2007, 1,640 women were killed by male partners, and 700 men were killed by female partn

There's a reason he didn't provide a source: because it's not true. In 2007, 1,640 women were killed by male partners, and 700 men were killed by female partners. [1] and the stats are far, far worse when one looks at non-lethal violence. The notion that women are more dangerous is a commonly spread mysoginist lie. It's designed to get upvoted by other anti-feminist, anti-woman "men". 1: http://opdv.ny.gov/statistics/nationaldvdata/intparthom.html http://opdv.ny.gov/statistics/nationaldvdata/intparthom.html

Retric 11y ago
For your source The victim has recently separated from the offender. That's the second half. Note, the stat I quoted included women killing women not just women killing men. Men are also far more likely to kill an ex partner than woman. As to the sourse, I was on a project dealing with violent crimes in the US army at the time. I remember being somewhat shocked but not the original material. Edit: I can't seem to find the details, so I am willing to accept I am not recalling this correctly.
- jholman 11y ago
  Upvoted for your edit. I make this comment, rather than just upvoting, because I wish to explicitly encourage on HN the social norm that Retric just displayed, of being open to being wrong.
dudul 11y ago
One can be anti-feminist without being anti-women. Some women are anti-feminist.
- cortesoft 11y ago
  What does it mean to be anti-feminist without being anti-women? What sort of beliefs would you have?
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    "Woman" is a very strict and well-defined word but "feminist" not so much, so it entirely depends on your definition of feminist. If you stand with the dictionary definition of "feminism", that is, the support of equal rights for men and women, then it sounds a bit odd. If your experience of feminism however is the american anti-male, pro-affirmative-action attitude then you absolutely can be anti-feminism without being anti-women. With good reason, too - "positive discrimination" is a scourge on equal rights, which are at the heart of the first and formal definition.
  - jholman 11y ago
    Obviously one could, hypothetically, believe that "feminism", whatever one intends that word to mean, is harmful or orthogonal to the interests of women collectively. (I say "whatever one intends that word to mean" because I believe that the English speech community, collectively, uses the word "feminism" to mean a variety of things, and as a good descriptivist, I believe that a word means whatever people use it to mean (and understand by it), and as such believe that it does not have a fixed meaning at this time.) I don't actually understand how you can ask that question without trolling, though I assume in good faith that you were not trolling.
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      I think it's a valid question if you are not familiar with extremist-feminism and just go by the dictionary definition of "feminism" == "equal rights for men and women".
    - cortesoft 11y ago
      I wasn't trolling at all. I was genuinely curious. I knew there were many possible answers, but I was curious as to what the person I was replying to meant by his statement. To me, feminism means that men and women should be treated with equal respect and have equal rights. I wanted to know if the poster had a different definition of feminism, or if they agreed on feminism but thought that it wasn't good for women.
      - 11y ago
scrollaway 11y ago
> The notion that women are more dangerous is a commonly spread mysoginist lie. It's designed to get upvoted by other anti-feminist, anti-woman "men". [citation needed] on that wild and extremely inflammatory claim... You like sources, don't you?
justabystander 11y ago
Both of you quoted lethal statistics, which are hardly representative of the majority of domestic violence. In fact, a lot of these studies conflict in data. For example, this study from 2007 suggest that 24% of relationships include some form of violence, and 70% of non-reciprocal violence was committed by women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17395835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17395835). Even the term "violence" has different meaning in studies, causing further ambiguity among the studies. It's often twisted to support a premise. Bottom line, statistics might not represent what you think they do, and just because someone drops different numbers doesn't mean they're malicious. Assuming malicious intent is actually a key behavior in many relationships with IPV, which signals that it's not healthy behavior. It's also a form of fear-mongering, which prevents rational dialogue. More to the point, there was a far more recent review of studies and literature regarding domestic violence just 2 years ago (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4003003 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4...). They mention some of the wide disparity in statistics supplied by different studies (http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.h...), showing that, for example, different studies have shown both men and women to be perpetrators of IPV between 1-69%, with the majority falling different ways depending on the study and the researchers involved. More interesting is the fact that their review of these other studies showed that, overall, men and women (both straight and LBGT) have similar perpetration rates. There are some outlying differences in a few classifications (e.g. stalking has fairly similar perpetration rates in aggregate, but males tend to gravitate toward physical stalking). What we see is that the narrative that any one side has significantly more violent tendencies has very little supporting evidence. People who claim otherwise are usually in the middle of some sort of confirmation bias. Often this is based on pre-existing belief or on anecdotal experiences. In essence, just like we're all equal, we've got a roughly equal distribution of violent abusers regardless of genital configuration. The fact that regardless of sex or sexual preference, the same percentage of people still abuse the people they "love" the most should be a miraculous starting point for a dialogue about equality, needs, relationship education, and violence prevention in general. However, it usually degenerates into finger-pointing like the above because people just can't accept that it's a human problem and not a gender problem.

Retric 11y ago

For your source The victim has recently separated from the offender. That's the second half. Note, the stat I quoted included women killing women not just women killing men. Men are also far more likely to kill an ex partner than woman. As to the sourse, I was on a project dealing with violent crimes in the US army at the time. I remember being somewhat shocked but not the original material. Edit: I can't seem to find the details, so I am willing to accept I am not recalling this correctly.

jholman 11y ago
Upvoted for your edit. I make this comment, rather than just upvoting, because I wish to explicitly encourage on HN the social norm that Retric just displayed, of being open to being wrong.

dudul 11y ago

One can be anti-feminist without being anti-women. Some women are anti-feminist.

cortesoft 11y ago
What does it mean to be anti-feminist without being anti-women? What sort of beliefs would you have?
- scrollaway 11y ago
  "Woman" is a very strict and well-defined word but "feminist" not so much, so it entirely depends on your definition of feminist. If you stand with the dictionary definition of "feminism", that is, the support of equal rights for men and women, then it sounds a bit odd. If your experience of feminism however is the american anti-male, pro-affirmative-action attitude then you absolutely can be anti-feminism without being anti-women. With good reason, too - "positive discrimination" is a scourge on equal rights, which are at the heart of the first and formal definition.
- jholman 11y ago
  Obviously one could, hypothetically, believe that "feminism", whatever one intends that word to mean, is harmful or orthogonal to the interests of women collectively. (I say "whatever one intends that word to mean" because I believe that the English speech community, collectively, uses the word "feminism" to mean a variety of things, and as a good descriptivist, I believe that a word means whatever people use it to mean (and understand by it), and as such believe that it does not have a fixed meaning at this time.) I don't actually understand how you can ask that question without trolling, though I assume in good faith that you were not trolling.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    I think it's a valid question if you are not familiar with extremist-feminism and just go by the dictionary definition of "feminism" == "equal rights for men and women".
  - cortesoft 11y ago
    I wasn't trolling at all. I was genuinely curious. I knew there were many possible answers, but I was curious as to what the person I was replying to meant by his statement. To me, feminism means that men and women should be treated with equal respect and have equal rights. I wanted to know if the poster had a different definition of feminism, or if they agreed on feminism but thought that it wasn't good for women.
    - 11y ago

scrollaway 11y ago

> The notion that women are more dangerous is a commonly spread mysoginist lie. It's designed to get upvoted by other anti-feminist, anti-woman "men". [citation needed] on that wild and extremely inflammatory claim... You like sources, don't you?

justabystander 11y ago

Both of you quoted lethal statistics, which are hardly representative of the majority of domestic violence. In fact, a lot of these studies conflict in data. For example, this study from 2007 suggest that 24% of relationships include some form of violence, and 70% of non-reciprocal violence was committed by women (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17395835 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17395835). Even the term "violence" has different meaning in studies, causing further ambiguity among the studies. It's often twisted to support a premise. Bottom line, statistics might not represent what you think they do, and just because someone drops different numbers doesn't mean they're malicious. Assuming malicious intent is actually a key behavior in many relationships with IPV, which signals that it's not healthy behavior. It's also a form of fear-mongering, which prevents rational dialogue. More to the point, there was a far more recent review of studies and literature regarding domestic violence just 2 years ago (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4003003 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4...). They mention some of the wide disparity in statistics supplied by different studies (http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.h...), showing that, for example, different studies have shown both men and women to be perpetrators of IPV between 1-69%, with the majority falling different ways depending on the study and the researchers involved. More interesting is the fact that their review of these other studies showed that, overall, men and women (both straight and LBGT) have similar perpetration rates. There are some outlying differences in a few classifications (e.g. stalking has fairly similar perpetration rates in aggregate, but males tend to gravitate toward physical stalking). What we see is that the narrative that any one side has significantly more violent tendencies has very little supporting evidence. People who claim otherwise are usually in the middle of some sort of confirmation bias. Often this is based on pre-existing belief or on anecdotal experiences. In essence, just like we're all equal, we've got a roughly equal distribution of violent abusers regardless of genital configuration. The fact that regardless of sex or sexual preference, the same percentage of people still abuse the people they "love" the most should be a miraculous starting point for a dialogue about equality, needs, relationship education, and violence prevention in general. However, it usually degenerates into finger-pointing like the above because people just can't accept that it's a human problem and not a gender problem.