3 ms·
If you take all men and all women, that's probably true. By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean t
by lolinder 2y ago
If you take all men and all women, that's probably true. By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean that you're safer there as a woman, it means there are far fewer of them there!
In order to come to your conclusion ("you are safer if you are a woman"), you'd have to control for where the crime takes place, who committed it, and why. For just one example: gang-related violence is a large category of crime that affects mostly men because mostly men are involved in gangs. But that category of violence does not contribute to the risk of most of us here falling victims to crimes because most of us here are not involved with gangs, so that falsely skews the numbers towards men as victims.
The real question you have to answer to come to your conclusion is if the typical woman on HN is safer than the typical man on HN.
- blueflow 2y ago> By the same token, men are also more likely to die on the front lines of a war, but that doesn't mean that you're safer there as a woman, it means there are far fewer of them there! And this is why? Women don't get drafted. Proving my point. The rest of your post is victim blaming.
- lolinder 2y ago> The rest of your post is victim blaming. Nonsense. It's simply stating the reality that HN users (the "you" in your comment) are not average males and average females—in fact, no one is. For the vast majority of audiences, gang violence should be excluded from tallies when trying to judge whether men or women are safer, and you're not doing so, which leads to an inaccurate judgement of relative risks for the people on this forum. It's not victim blaming, it's pointing out that you're applying stats wrong.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- psd1 2y agoHave you considered the possibility that you're conflating populations with independent variables?