Here's a more general report that delves into your question: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

By far the biggest reason is that ~70% of those homicides are crime or gang related, and almost all of those are men, which neatly accounts for the disparity.

That of course raises the question, why are men so much more likely to get tangled up in gangs or crime? I'm sure that the sociologists have a more nuanced take, but I'll venture out on a limb and say it's because men are full of dumbassifying hormones. Being immersed in societal peer pressure probably doesn't help, depending on what environment they're in.

Sir, my entire thesis was about how important it is to present clear data to substantiate your claims. Not only are you refuting the findings with zero data or sources, you are injecting a racially charged dimension into the mix.

For all we know your arguments could be entirely correct, but you yourself are undermining them by not attempting constructive discourse.

The original article is about global numbers, not just the USA.

The thing is, cancer is not a systemic issue. Very few cultures have millenia old excuses to justify (specifically) women dying of cancer.

Wouldn't that be valuable to the argument, then?

I'm not sure on the math there. 20% of homicide were women, with 60% of those 20% being killed from domestic violence. It doesn't directly mention what percentage of men were killed from domestic violence.

It’s very related, and the answer is found in the same report. Another commenter answered tho.

It’s not unusual to have sideline discussions in a comment thread.

The title is worded in a way that implies it’s a gendered issue, so asking for more information about the gender divide is appropriate. I appreciate that other replies have given the numbers to back up the extent to which it’s gendered.

Nah stfu

Saying you can’t talk about one kind of murder without solving all violence is disingenuous

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.

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.

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

Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 90.3 percent were males.

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.

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

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:

Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 37.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2 and 10.)

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..

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.

I bet this also has a directionality to it as well that would need to be applied.