pixxelkick

Ah, fuck, yeah that'd be it wouldn't it.

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. (Edit: drug overdoses, whoops)

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 (drug overdoses)
• 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

I just assumed the fact that black men get charged with worse penalties on average was well known enough and common knowledge I wouldnt have to sit and gather papers on it.

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/64/5/1189/7612940

I mean there's an entulire Wikipedia page with many sources for it, take your pick.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity

The fact that black men make up a disproportionate amount of perpetrators and victims of violence is also extremely well established, because you know... gangs exist

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/

In Canada our Indeginious communities have a similiar trend: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510015601

While simultaneously it's also pretty well known that gangs trend to being familial in nature. I hope you won't ask for me to find papers demonstrating how often gang violence tends to be "in family", I don't know how easy that will be to find, but it should be pretty common knowledge that gangs typically revolve around family blood ties.

As a result of all three of these facts, it's extremely easy to see how a considerable chunk of what would be classifiable as male on male domestic violence instead gets classified as non-domestic gang related activity.

Which will make up a non-trivial chunk of that gap you are seeing, very possibly swinging it the opposite direction.

I'd be extremely surprised if men aren't the actual disproportionate victims of domestic violence once you remove racial/cultural biases out. I expect an enormous amount of domestic violence is categorized as non-domestic.

Literally anyone who has paid attention to the news over the past several years should be starkly aware of how intense these biases play out when it comes to cops knocking on doors of domestic violence events, and how way to often it turns into a "justified homicide"

It should be noted most models of cars have high-vis parts on them, usually on the rear, that work the same way.

Consider the following:

A lot of reports of domestic violence for male on male violence is reported as non domestic instead, which contributes to a portion of the perceived gap.

The gap is likely smaller than you think. Its even distinctly likely men are in reality the victims more often (like every other category of violence), but it just doesn't get categorized as domestic because sexism.

Especially since a lot of the victims are often black, which even further biases against them for a domestic incident to get escalated to non domestic (carrying heavier sentences)

It's well known that black men tend to convicted with far heavier sentences than any other demographic for the same crimes.

The victims also are primarily men.

Men vs men violence makes up more of the graph then all other pairings combined

Men are the primary victims and offenders of violence, by an incredibly large margin.

Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 percent) were male.

Men are twice to four times as likely to be the victim of murder

But yeah no, it's women that for sure are the "disproportionately affected victims"

It's a lot of bullshit, women are slightly more victims than men, maybe, in specifically domestic violence. And even then the gap is incredibly small.

Meanwhile men are substantially more likely to be the victim in every other category, and those categories dwarf domestic violence by such a huge amount.

But articles will skim over that as a non issue, and will spend paragraphs talking about how women are the real victims here

When the "disproportion" is only 60% vs 40%, that's a fairly small gap, only a 10% shift.

Enough to be within the realm that it's more likely to just be a reporting problem to swing the other way.

Meanwhile in reality gay men have at times been disproportionately affected by aids on the scale of hundreds to thousands of times worse than other demographics.

So yeah, no, a 10% shift off bias is not actually terribly huge.

Especially when in the same paragraph they acknowledge a 30% shift bias for men in general, and didn't remark on that at all.

To call "50% more likely" a huge issue in one sentence and then skim over "300% more likely as not being noteworthy is fucked up

But no one bats an eye at this because that violence is normalized.

The problem is when articles literally phrase it as if the minority portion of the violence is the majority.

When you do that, you now are minimizing a lot of shit and you've failed.

Even though men and boys account for the vast majority of homicide victims, women and girls continue to be disproportionately affected by lethal violence in the private sphere," the report said.

“An estimated 80% of all homicide victims in 2023 were men while 20% were women, but lethal violence within the family takes a much higher toll on women than men, with almost 60% of all women who were intentionally killed in 2023 being victims of intimate partner/family member homicide,” it said.

So men and boys are dying way more due to violence overall, but as usual people will do whatever it takes to make it look like women are most affected.

Men are dying an order of magnitude more. As long as media keeps ignoring that and trying to twist the numbers to make it look like women have to worse, then you'll never actually make real progress.

You have to acknowledge violence as a whole and not pick and choose what violence "counts" for your cause.

You either are against violence or not, so stop minimizing 80% and making it out to be a non issue, and trying to frame the minority of the violence to be the majority.

Here's the direct link to the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02067-4 And they shared their code used to query the data here: https://github.com/geocomplexity/SwoCMetaURL/blob/main/Code.md

Counter with tabling a bill to make the bathrooms all gender neutral.

If the cunts are gonna be counts, at least force em to keep admitting it out loud so people keep seeing it.

Gippity is pretty good at getting me 90% of the way there.

It usually sets me up with at least all the terms and etc I now know to google, whereas before I wouldnt even know what I am looking for in the first place.

Also not gonna lie, search engines are even worse than gippity for accuracy often.

And Ive had to fight with so many cases of garbage documentation lately that gippity genuinely does the job better, because it has all the random comments from issues and solutions in its data.

Usually once I have my sort of key terms I need to dig into, I can use youtube/google and get more specific information though, and thats the last 10%