4 ms·
While it is seen as a problem, the point is that it's not taken seriously enough than the opposite imbalance. There are way worse examples: Male students are
by vilda 10y ago
While it is seen as a problem, the point is that it's not taken seriously enough than the opposite imbalance.
There are way worse examples:
Male students are getting a whole one level worse marks than female students with the same knowledge [1] (Czech).
Theoretically, each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate. In reality, with a whooping 85-90% the custody is resolved according to female preference [2]: "It is a very common scenario in divorce in England that the house is transferred into the wife's sole name, the children live with the wife and the husband pays maintenance for the children..."
Males are 400-600% more likely to be attacked than females, while it is females safety that is discussed way more.
The vector of home violence is woman against child and not man against woman as often believed: "The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers."
Even worse, when child is killed: "And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers."
[1] https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt
[2] http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html
[3] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf
- jacobolus 10y agoI don’t know enough about Czech grades to comment, and I generally agree with you about the common unfairness of custody disputes, but the rest of your claims seem a bit shaky. Your point #2 (along with other reasons for a child to more commonly live with a single mother, e.g. the father isn’t known, is in prison, or runs off) partly explains your points #4 and #5. From the document you cite, 27% of abuse victims were living with a single mother and another 5% were living with their mother and another adult, while only 3% were living with a single father. If you only look at children living with both parents, it looks like either parent could be the abuser with approximately equal likelihood. Looking at the source document, your claim #5 seems to be a complete misinterpretation of the data, but in any event, the largest cause of fatalities is “neglect”, and most fatalities were in children under the age of 3. More generally, I suspect a significant proportion of children spend substantially more time with their mothers than their fathers, e.g. because fathers are more likely to work, tend to work longer hours when both parents are working, and do much less housework and childcare. I suspect these disparities are even more prevalent if you restrict your examination to households where child abuse occurs. If you want to understand child abuse by parents, you should try to gather concrete data about the family structure and other context. Aggregate statistics about which parent is more often the aggressor can be misleading without considering those other factors (most relevantly here, who the primary caregiver is). Interpreting this document to imply that children are at much greater danger from women than men is disingenuous, or sloppy at best. Similarly for your point #3. What is the context for the “attacks” you are talking about? Gang violence? Bar fights? School bullying? Muggings in dark alleys late at night? You don’t cite a source, so it’s not clear quite what you’re referring to.
- vilda 10y agoI showed only few examples. While we may discuss individual points, I believe the whole imbalance has been clearly shown. By arguing that the level of abuse by man and woman is roughly the same you are actually enforcing the point, not making is weaker. And if we are looking at the whole picture, presenting totals makes complete sense. We don't need detailed statistics to point the imbalance. There's no question that the type of abuse differs among men and women.
- snowwrestler 10y agoYou've got to get over the idea that there is some sort of fair level at which all these problems should be talked about. For one thing, unless you've done some rigorous surveying of the total communications landscape, your perception of how seriously everyone is taking these imbalances is going to be limited by what you happen to see (intentional or accidental filtering), and what you remember (confirmation bias). For another thing, the solutions are not mutually dependent--some people can try to get more women into STEM jobs without hurting the efforts of other people who are trying to get more men into nursing jobs. We don't need to achieve some fair and balanced level of discourse before we start actually fixing things. Finally, imbalances are not themselves a problem, they are a symptom. In STEM jobs, the big problem is not there are too few women, it is that the culture of many places is abusive and off-putting to women. That's what needs to be solved. Gender imbalance is just a proxy that's easier to measure.