Summary
A U.N. report shows that 140 women and girls were killed daily by intimate partners or family members in 2023, totaling 51,100 victims, an increase of 2,300 from 2022.
The rise reflects improved data collection rather than an increase in violence.
The highest rates were in Africa, with 2.9 victims per 100,000 people.
Despite global prevention efforts, these killings, often the result of ongoing gender-based violence, persist at alarming levels.
The report emphasizes the preventability of such violence through timely and effective interventions.
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.
How many of those are killed in domestic circumstances, by partners or relatives? While it’s true that more men get murdered, femicides are a real and documented issue, and one that will take very different measures to solve from, say, gang violence. Saying you can’t talk about one kind of murder without solving all violence is disingenuous, along the lines of the “all lives matter” crowd. Especially so since the article specifically talks about what you’re criticizing.
Not really, no. Violence doesn’t just pop up randomly, it has causes, if you don’t look at all the symptoms (types of violence) then you might be missing common causes and with that the best opportunities to actually make inroads.
Like, how many cases of domestic violence are caused by pent-up frustration caused by, reinforced by, and made unaddressable (for the individual) by, capitalism? Fixing that frustration at the source would make “it’s not good to be violent with your families” have a much, much greater impact, now it becomes a question of “what’s best for my family”, not “do I even have the emotional bandwidth to not punch a wall right now”.
Always, always, be hypervigilant about reductionism, it’s the primary mechanism the, for lack of better term, hivemind uses to repress stuff so it can continue this neurotic BS. Also, eat the rich.
Textbook whataboutism.
There are different solutions to different sources of violence. A holistic approach as you advocate for would include tactical solutions where you look at underlying causes of violence towards specific groups as well as broad strategic solutions to analyze the problem at large.
You can acknowledge violence as a whole while simultaneously understanding that domestic violence affects some groups more than others, and that “solving violence” may require specific approaches to handling domestic abuse.
It’s about highlighting domestic abuse that leads to murder ya dingus
Okay, I understand the sentiment behind this comment (and I didn’t downvote you), because men’s issues are often underrepresented or even ignored (see: rape) in key areas, but consider this (to clarify, this is fake data meant to mirror this article): two UN agencies come out and say that this year, 50,000 gay men have died from AIDS, 2,000 more than last year. AIDS deaths are on the rise. The report notes that even though non-gay men tend to be more affected by chronic illness overall, gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS.
Or maybe there’s a report about how people in South America disproportionately die to a specific kind of insect-transmitted disease, and the UN creates a report on it. They note the vast majority of insect-borne illness deaths are from malaria in Africa, but that this specific disease most affects people in South America.
Would you be here standing up on a podium decrying that the announcement focuses on gay people? Or that it focuses on South America? The point of this finding is that there’s an area where someone is disproportionately affected, and unlike just “homicide”, a lot more can be done in the short-term to prevent domestic violence.
As another comment noted, this is whataboutism. I don’t think it’s being done in bad faith, but it’s still whataboutism.
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.
Reducing all kinds of violence to the same Violence™ does nothing to address the myriad ways that different kinds of violence happen. All these different kinds of violence makes each kind of violence more manageable that trying to stop Violence™. Focusing on different kinds of violence let’s us allocate resources and attention and research toward dealing with it.
A domestic assault is a much different kind of violence to 2 drunk guys fighting it out to a mobster telling his underlings to “take someone out.” All of these things need/have different things to handle them. Shelters for domestic abuse creates somewhere safe to go, bouncers will break up a fight and kick the brawlers out, for organized crime there RICO legislation.
Stopping All Violence™ is too big of a task for any one person or organization to handle.
I don’t like violence either, so much of it leads to unnecessary loss of life and limb and innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire. But lumping all together into Violence™ brings us no closer to resolving conflicts before the start or helping people when things do go wrongf
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.
This is just a lie; the article does no such thing and even expressly emphasizes the exact opposite.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
Is that fucking better for you?
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.
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
Of stats that include “fathers”, “husbands”, “sons”, “boyfriends”, etc… You don’t see how those stats as you present it is meaningless to the OP’s discussion and proves “Men are dying an order of magnitude more.”? Men can kill their fathers, husbands, sons, etc…
You’re talking about who’s doing the killing, not what gender the people who were killed were.
Source: your source.
You’re cherry picking really dumb shit. Especially when your own source PROVES the person you’re arguing with correct.
Don’t get me wrong… What you should have quoted:
This is a problem. But that’s of the 22.6% of homicides on the table already (removing the 77.4% males), so we’re talking about ~8.5% with no given information about what that looks like in the reverse, nor what the Female-Female rates are. That’s a loaded stat without the other two being present on the page as well. If raw numbers match or are similar enough… then it’s not what you’re insinuating it is at all.
The only actually relevant thing you can probably stat with that page is that men kill more women than women kill men. Except that would be expected since Men on average are physically stronger and are more capable of defending against an average Woman. You would expect more “success” in men attempting to kill women, and more “failure” in women attempting to kill men with just that fact alone.
And lastly, since you already omitted data…
I bet this also has a directionality to it as well that would need to be applied.
lol