267
Home is the most dangerous place for women, says global femicide report (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An estimated 140 women and girls across the world die at the hands of their partner or family member every day, according to new global estimates on femicide by the UN.

The report by UN Women found 85,000 women and girls were killed intentionally by men in 2023, with 60% (51,100) of these deaths committed by someone close to the victim. The organisation said its figures showed that, globally, the most dangerous place for a woman to be was in her home, where the majority of women die at the hands of men.

Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, UN Women’s deputy executive director, said: “What the data is telling us is that it is the private and domestic sphere’s of women’s lives, where they should be safest, that so many of them are being exposed to deadly violence.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 80 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Posting this from another thread.

It's a shame that this data is being presented this poorly, because this is a really important issue that deserves attention. None of the figures presented in the linked article have the proper context to understand them. Even the UN report itself does not present their findings well.

So, for instance, 140 women per day is of course more than the ideal number of zero, but there are billions of people on this planet. To actually quantify the gender imbalance of this number, we need to compare it to the number of men who are victims in the same way. From the report:

Globally, approximately 51,100 women and girls were killed by their intimate partners or other family members [...out of...] 85,000 women and girls killed intentionally during the year [...] In other words, an average of 140 women and girls worldwide lost their lives every day at the hands of their partner or a close relative.

The report does not offer corresponding numbers for male (or non-binary) victims. It does, however, say that 11.8% of male victims and 60.2% of female victims are killed by partners or other family members. It also acknowledges that 80% of all homicide victims are men and 20% women, which is beside the point as this is about domestic violence, but it will allow us to do some math to arrive at numbers to compare against.

  • 85,000 * 80/20 = 340,000 men killed total
  • 340,000 * 11.8% = 40,120 men killed by partners or family
  • so we are comparing 40,120 men with 51,100 women
  • women are 27.4% more likely than men to be killed by partners or family.

...which should have been the headline. 27% more is massive! Domestic violence is a huge issue, and women are more likely to suffer from it!

There is no need to obfuscate the numbers to be less honest. The honest numbers themselves are shocking enough, and scientifically literate readers won't dismiss your credibility along with your cause. I look forward to future UN reports communicating these horrifying statistics a bit more clearly.

Edit: Wtf is wrong with ya'll? This article is only about one kind of violence that women are more suseptible too. That's it. No one is trying to say men aren't getting hurt, or even that women being harmed is the #1 cause of women's death. Someone has a post like, "Well, women are more likely to slip, so that's more dangerous, so there!" Like, okay??? Men are usually the victims of violent crimes and homicides, but when they looked at home based partner abuse, women come out on top. Like, damn.

Here's some articles on men since apparently we can't have an article talking about something specific. ~~I guess I should leave a comment on all of these saying "What about the girls!"~~ :

Men and boys are also victims of sex trafficking

CDC page about male victims

Men are less likely to fight back (South Africa specific)

Men are less likely to report abuse.

[-] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

80% of all homicide victims are men and 20% women

I thought it was the other way around. TIL.

[-] CitricBase@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Thank you.

To be fair to the Guardian, their headline is substantive, compared to the other article that just gave a number without context. The report does clearly support the assertion that on average home is the most dangerous place for women to be attacked.

[-] flamingarms@feddit.uk 6 points 3 days ago

I'm confused - how are the numbers they provided less honest? You came up with a different stat than what they're focusing on, but I don't see how that makes it more honest.

[-] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Well, the way they initially presented has people coming in saying "Well, men get hurt too" like they're trying to say they don't. The way this first explained the numbers is saying, "Hey, they're 27% more likely to be harmed." All the person did was turn the data into a percentage.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Smoogs@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

And men are usually the most common victim of violence …from other men. This is if you take in the gang violence and LBGTQ factor. This is not to say that men cannot die from women or women are on some sort of pedestal this is just to say men are more likely to be killed by another man than a woman in many circumstances.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee -5 points 2 days ago

It's funny how your types only acknowledge non binary people when you're trying to put down women's issues.

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago

No deaths in covens!

[-] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Unless you hang with Agatha

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

Yes but she makes sure the event does not enter any statistics

[-] Harvey656@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

I guess I'll have to tell my fiance that being home is dangerous. So I'll have to kick her out. Good news: more time for dnd! /s

Stupid jokes aside this isn't surprising, most murders in general are done by someone close. I'd like to know the statistics on why they were killed, how many where crimes of passion? Jealousy? Misogyny?

I think we need to know more in order to combat these types of violent mentalities.

[-] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

I’m sure this thread will be fine

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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

[-] suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago

It’s your stairs and… garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must.

Drug overdoses.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Or suicide, but the family has enough influence to get it ruled accidental.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

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

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago

This is ignoring the fact that not every women who is a victim of intimate partners violence is murdered by that intimate partner. Those who die are a very small minority of those who suffer. Women absolutely have to be concerned about being physically or sexually harmed by intimate partners. It is so common that we have to for our own survival.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

No one said that doesnt happen.

But the article is trying to frame homicide at home as the leading danger to women. It's pretty demonstratebly not, it's a small minority of causes for injury and death amongst women.

Accidents are substantially more common as a source of danger for women, by an enormous margin, both in lethal and non lethal cases.

Literally anyone who has ever worked in an ER can attest to the fact that the vast vast majority of injuries are accident related.

Women should be a fuck tonne more concerned about the shitty products ordered from China that can genuinely kill them (lithium batteries, tools, healthy and beauty products, electronics, etc), as well as practicing proper safety precautions when doing tasks (PPE, having a spotter, avoiding lifting too much weight, etc).

That shit is enormously more dangerous than domestic violence, in terms of pure statistics, by an enormous margin.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago

This is just entirely ignorant of how prolific domestic violence against women is. There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.

This is not a conversation about cause of mortality. The purpose of highlighting the ways women are abused and murdered by intimate partners is to examine how widespread the issue of violence against women is.

Domestic violence is, statistically, something the majority of women will face at some point in their life. We are telling you that broadly speaking, the entire class of women is suffering the effects of chronic victimization by intimate partners, and you will do absolutely anything to avoid addressing it for what it is.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.

I'm going to need to see some sources on that, that sounds incredibly high.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Have a read at my other comment in the thread then. I provide several links covering this exact thing.

Honestly, the fact that this is surprising to you is kind of incredible. Most of the women I know have been victims of domestic violence. Including family members.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Ah I see, right so the key in your date is it's historical.

It's not a 60% victimization rate in discrete circumstances. It's a victimization rate hysterically.

Which is critical because there's an enormous difference between "60% of women are being victimized actively" vs "60% 9f women are reporting having been victimized at some point historically"

The difference is such:

Let's do the usual poisoned m&ms in a bowl analogy.

If 1% of m&ms are poisoned, but you grab 100 m&ms and eat them, your odds of getting poisoned are waaay higher than 1%, it's now 63%!

So on a discrete measure of "what percent of women are actively living in a victimizing situation right now" it will be fairly low, I don't know if we have that data.

But a woman moves through numerous situations in her life. She likely lives with many people, goes to many jobs, interacts with many strangers.

So while one discrete dice roll can have extremely low odds of a bad outcome, naturally living life inherently means you will roll that dice hundreds of times.

Inversely, when talking about "are women currently safe in their homes?" That's a discrete statistic, not historical.

It's like comparing eating a handful of the m&ms vs eating only 1 m&m, the numbers are wildly different and if you try and present one as the other, you will come across as disingenuous.

When discussing mortality rates, that's a discrete event, moat people typically only die once.

You either are, or are not, dead.

So when discussing whats most likely to kill you, you look at the discrete numbers and it's objectively fact that the discrete odds of being murdered are incredibly low compared to dying pretty much any other way.

While bring harassed historically is high, the odds a woman's current living situation right now is one of violence is much lower than 60%

Because if it was 60%, then the odds of being historically a victim of any type of violence would be pretty much 100%.

But the fact that number is 60% means the discrete number is, eyeballing it with rough numbers, going to be in the single digits.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Are you under the impression that once your boyfriend is done assaulting you, you go back to normal? Or that after your husband beats you and threatens to kill you, that you resume normal life afterwards? Or that when you are sexually harassed by adult male family members as a teenager, once it's over you're able to continue growing into an adult without any impact on you? No, you don't. Being a victim of intimate partner violence is not something that ends once the specific act is done. Many women suffer the effects of it for their entire lives. An abusive relationship can also last decades. Most abusive relationships are long term ones. It is very difficult to leave an abuser, even moreso if that person is a member of your family.

This is far and away the most deranged response I have ever seen. Rambling, completely incoherent and entirely unrelated to the subject matter?

These studies are self reported as well. They're not account for violence against children under the age of 15, and by nature, they come in under the actual figures. The reality is that women as a class suffer chronic victimization of male violence. The overwhelming majority of women have experienced gender based violence at some point in their lives.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

completely incoherent Just because you dont understand the difference between discrete statistics vs historical doesnt mean its incoherent.

Understanding the difference between "whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat one M&M from the bowl" vs "whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat an entire handful" is something you should've learned in high school.

Representing one of those odds as the other is disingenuous, and will not win people over to your side, because people can usually intuitively tell the difference usually and go "that doesnt seem right..."

Which, in turn, is why shit like trump getting elected happens. The pattern of vastly over-inflating numbers to make shitty clickbait when the original meaningful numbers were already a big enough deal anyways has heavily polarized the landscape.

As long as people keep doing stupid shit like that, it's going to do the exact opposite of what you want. Instead of drawing people to any good causes it pushes them away, because they then just assume its all bullshit.

If you don't understand the vast difference between a discussion on discrete statistical odds vs cumulative odds, you probably shouldn't be trying to weigh in because all you are doing is just muddying the waters with bad numbers that aren't actually relevant to the core of the discussion, which just pisses people off and makes them turtle up more.

I get where you are coming from, but you just need to wrap your head around the fact the numbers you brought up have no bearing on anything I was talking about, they arent necessarily wrong, but they're just not relevant to what I was discussing, so it just came across as rude or uninformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No, I know what you're saying about discrete numbers and historical ones. I never once tried to represent anything as a discrete number, by nature of the subject matter this conversation cannot be about discrete numbers because again BEING A VICTIM DOES NOT STOP WHEN INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF ABUSE ARE NO LONGER OCCURRING.

What is incoherent is someone being like "here's factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted" and your response is "okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted". I can understand why the specific phrase "victimization rate" could come off as confusing? But even in the context of discrete vs historical there are some figures supporting a discrete interpretation of this. Like from previous figures I've given 61% of women reporting unwanted sexual behaviors by men between the ages of 15 and 24. That would indicate that yes at present somewhere around 60% of women in that age demographic have recently experienced gender based sexual violence.

This is also not about winning anyone over to a cause. This is a statement of fact, the extent to which women are abused by men. To the point that the majority of women are victims of gender based violence from men.

You entirely skipped over the first part of my last message as well. A discrete number would be entirely unhelpful in assessing the extent to which women are being victimized by men because women are not all being victimized at the same time and women do not stop being victims once they aren't being actively victimized.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

What is incoherent is someone being like “here’s factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted” and your response is “okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted”

What part about this do you not understand. It's not complicated.

There's a huge difference in "how many people have had their home burn down" vs "how many homes are at risk of burning down right now" and the latter was what was being originally discussed

They are entirely different conversations.

When the current actuall convo is about "what's the risk of your house burning down right now" and the answer is "quite low", but then you butt in and go "nuh uh, like 60% of people have had a house burn down in the past" you sound ridiculous.

You in that moment demonstrate either:

  1. You don't understand how stats work and why your number is irrelevant to the convo. Or
  2. You do know how they work, and thus are being actively disingenuous.

Either way, go figure yourself out. Your numbers aren't relevant here, go either find the numbers that are relevant, or at least stop muddling the waters with bad math.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Omg are you seriously coming here to talk over me while I'm spreading awareness about how prolific gender based violence against women is? Who tf are you? We aren't in a fucking stats classroom or whatever you think this is. The absolute and utter detachment you seem to have towards a subject like systemic violence against women is honestly insane. There exists no rule stating that I can't bring up another data set in a discussion on violence against women. Literally not one human being has ever said that. It is also absolutely relevant data to the topic at hand. And then people like you wonder why we feel like men don't care about how we are bring abused. You'd rather pedantically talk over me about the classification of data sets then actually meaningfully engage with the fact that women are so likely to be physically or sexually abused by men that 60% of women in a specific age range of 15 to 24 have experienced that. Which is saying nothing of girls under 15 and women 25 and over.

If 60% of the population of women will be sexually or physically abused by male intimate partners then OVER HALF of women are victims of intimate partner violence. That is the takeaway. If you have no interest in talking about this, then go do something else with your time.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You interjected in the discussion with non-relevant stats, and are now getting mad when called out on it.

Your stats you are presenting aren't relevant to the post I made. Deal with it and go throw a tantrum somewhere else. I posted first, you are trying to talk over me

Go find an echo chamber to complain to instead of cluttering up discussions with irrelevance and throwing tantrums while people are trying to talk about the actual facts that are relevant.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah youre right a post about femicide by intimate partners has no connection with rates of intimate partner violence.

I also didnt respond to your fucking post with those stats I was responding to another commenter. Everything else I said stands.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Historical odds of experiencing violence in the past has no relevance to discrete odds of danger now, correct.

Glad you finally figured it out.

Having experienced food poisoning 5 years ago has zero relevance to the question of "is this current dish I am about to eat safe?"

The latter is the discussion you are insisting on butting in on and trying to steer the convo towards the former.

No one gives a shit about your food poisoning from 5 years ago Karen, we are discussing if this dish right now is poisoned or not.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 7 points 3 days ago

The idea of stranger danger was created to give the real predators cover

[-] huquad@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

This is just the premise to the south park kidnappers episode

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 days ago

Ah yes, femicide... a very common turn of phrase I have seen readily discussed many times before today.

This is rank with the kind of fearbating that lives on fox news. I wasn't expecting it here. Even if true it reads like rage bait.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
267 points (96.2% liked)

News

23415 readers
4460 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world