How do i respond to people who claim that domestic violence against women is more serious bec. It result in more death than the other way around?

ArmchairDesease · 2023-12-19T14:20:17+00:00

Based on demographic prevalence, it is safe to assume that more straight people die in traffic accidents than gay people.

Since there are fewer gay victims than straight ones, here's a brilliant idea: we should focus our efforts on helping heterosexual road victims only!

SpicyMarshmellow · 2023-12-19T15:08:47+00:00

That's only true if you ignore suicide. I forget the exact number, but suffering abuse multiplies your risk of suicide several times over. It's not controversial that men lead in suicide rates.

Of course, they'll just respond "But women attempt more!", and take that as evidence that women suffer more, while promoting the idea that men succeed more because they're literally worse human beings ("men use more violent methods because they're more violent and love guns more" + "women are more considerate about the mess they leave behind for someone else to clean up"). My response to that is women attempt without succeeding more often, because they're more accustomed to people paying attention to their well-being and receiving help when they need it, thus "cry for help" attempts make more sense for them. Men are not socialized to believe that anyone will care about a cry for help. Most men do put out cries for help before suicide, just not in the form of failed attempts. And my personal observation without data to back it up is that if you pay attention to how people talk about men vs women who commit suicide, people are far more likely to shame the male suicide victim for being selfish and harming or failing their loved ones, instead of expressing any sympathy that they were miserable enough to do such a thing. But this is a real difficult path to take the discussion. As soon as you claim that society cares about women more or that their suicide attempts aren't as sincere as men's, they're very likely to just label you misogynistic and cease engaging with you altogether except to mock and villainize you.

OppositeBeautiful601 · 2023-12-19T15:48:14+00:00

This argument is meant to emphasize the physical power imbalance between men and women. On the surface, it's compelling. However, the point of gender symmetry is not to minimize how women (or men) suffer from IPV/DV. The point is that society cannot solve the problem of domestic violence if it only addresses the problem of male perpetration and only provides help to female victims. For one, a reformed male DV perpetrator that returns to a household that was mutually abusive is going to still experience abuse from his partner. Secondly, if he has no outlet or support as a DV victim, he will stay and endure the abuse. Eventually, he will retaliate and end up back in jail.

It reminds me of A Clockwork Orange. The main character, as part of his sentence, undergoes brutal psychological conditioning to remove his predatory nature and is released back into the predatory society responsible for his nature in the first place.

We cannot expect men to suffer abuse and never retaliate. That is why it is important that we see IPV/DV as a gender neutral issue.

awakiwi1 · 2023-12-19T14:14:05+00:00

You can ask if they believe that the end always justifies the means.

And then why in this case they focus on the end instead of the means.

SomeSugondeseGuy · 2023-12-19T16:05:17+00:00

every single crime other than rape (if you ignore male victims), domestic violence (again, if you ignore male victims) and sexual harassment/assault (that one is true) happens more to men than it does women.

If that sentiment were applied across the board, we really would live in a patriarchy.

(I don't deny male privilege, I just can't reconcile the two sources above with the idea that society is built for us specifically)

MachoManShark · 2023-12-19T18:50:47+00:00

rates of iph used to be nearly equal, but killings of men declined hugely around the time that victim services for women proliferated.

p. 8 & 9 have graphs displaying that.

~

providing victim services seems to reduce the rate at which victims kill their partners, not so much the rate at which victims are killed.

~

boys are more likely to be hit by their parents than girls are. 1 (one) 2 (two) 3 (three)

that last one is relevant because kids who experience violence are more likely to commit it. overall, good luck caring about violence against women without also caring about violence against men and boys.

~

here's a cool post by tinmen that i think is relevant

it bring up suicides caused by ipv, which is relevant here.

ByronsLastStand · 2023-12-19T16:01:49+00:00

I believe injuries are more prevalent among male victims according to the PASK study. That might be a good place to start in general, because it rather nicely blows several holes in the usual arguments you hear.

Digger_is_taken · 2023-12-20T15:03:33+00:00

In debate land, this is called a goalpost argument. The claim has the implicit assumption that mortality is the prime measurement for allocating concern. Unpack that assumption.

In the US men die 6 years younger than women on average. So if we're using mortality as the measuring stick for concern, than men should be receiving the lion's share of concern.

Your interlocutor is not using consistent methods to allocate concern. They use mortality to raise concern for women when it is convenient, and ignore it when it would raise concern for men. Their only true consistency is concern for women over men.

Sydnaktik · 2023-12-19T17:42:20+00:00

In what context?

Here's a couple of key concepts I use here.

First, nuanced whataboutism. Talking about the lack of assistance for male victims of domestic abuse frequently happens in the context of "violence against women", because the blatant double standard at play combine with the lack of effective mainstream platform for raising awareness on men;s issues makes staying silent about it difficult.

Using whataboutism to highlight and active and egregious double standard isn't just "ok" to do. It's what a good person would do.

Using whataboutism to distract or dismiss a legitimate concern is not "ok" and is what a bad person with little to no empathy would do.

It's kinda pointless to try and explain this kind of nuance in the middle of a debate/conversation. But it's really useful to understand it to help with your own mental state and confidence.

It's also a barometer for the level of good faith that the other person is engaged in. If they legitimately have empathy for men and you're using whataboutism correctly, then they should engage positively with your message.

From there, it depends on the context. If this is an online debate, you're kinda wasting your time. All the arguments have been made, you can make similar ones again. For any given argument you have, there exists a counter argument for it, and there exists a counter argument to that argument.

Only way to get to the bottom of it, is to become a world class expert on the topic, research all that is known, and do 100 times as much research as there has already been.

If this is with friends or loved ones. Don't argue the facts, argue the empathy. Show them you have empathy for women and get them to show you that they are capable of empathy for men. If they aren't, get new friends or loved ones. If they're capable of empathy for men, use that to slowly get them more educated on men's issues. You're not trying to make them into experts, you're trying to get them to care about men and be aware of the presence of misandry in society.

If this is with family members or work colleagues, it gets crazy complicated. If you're a man and you're faced with misandry in these types of environments, make sure you get very proficient at setting boundaries and having them respected. If for whatever reason you're not able to have your boundaries respected, you gotta make cutting contact a top priority. That's just no way to live.

sanitaryinspector · 2023-12-19T15:03:31+00:00

The majority of murderers overall is men. The percentage of men among murderers in relationships is roughly the same of the overall percentage (about 90% here in Italy)

So why so many women are killed? Because heterosexual relationships are the vast majority. So the vast majority of relationship murders is committed by men because that's how homicides work even outside relationships, and the vast majority of killed people are women because due to sexual orientation very few men get in relationships with other men.

So, if men use murder more than women, you can't assume that the use violence is as skewed towards men as the use of homicide.

Also point out who are the ones proudly admitting partner battery and violence on TV and mass media without a hint of a consequence, I see only women falling in this scenario, so it's even possible that some men learn to be violent by a proud abusive woman.

thithothith · 2023-12-19T22:27:58+00:00

This one is complicated, I think. There's a lot of relevant factors involve, but bringing them up only sounds like making excuses, even when they are quite obviously extremely relevant. off the top of my head..

Women probably have more avenues to release steam. In a lot of cases, she could literally punch and kick the guy with all her strength, and not have to worry about retaliation, being called an abuser, being incarcerated, etc. For a guy, they could maybe hit a wall, or themselves, but if they hit a woman, things can get very bad for the guy very quickly. this is in part due to physical strength differences, and various types of socialization (men struggle to complain, relatively. men would be shamed for complaining about being hit by a girl. guy would have to worry about counter accusations if violence were reciprocated by him, even in self defense, etc. many many things)
Spontaneous, non-premeditated murders are probably something women can't do as much. Assuming a hypothetical where the man is physically stronger than the woman (most cases) if there's - for example - a huge argument, and a man in a hetero monogamous relationship wants to kill, he probably could without any immediate concern (sure they'd forfeit their life, but that's a later concern) if it were a woman, she'd need to get a weapon, and even with a weapon, she'd need to be sure she kills them without allowing them to defend themselves. There would be more steps involved, which would force them to think about even immediate term consequences, and that could add reluctance for all kinds of reasons (immediate safety, processing time, etc)
If I was a kid (analogy for being the physically weaker party) and I wanted to kill my parents.. It'd be sneaky. I imagine more women kill their partners by proxy, poison, exploiting allergies, etc. it will be harder to determine if i really was the murderer, if I do my due diligence. Of course men would also likely do these if the murder is premeditated, but im just saying that it almost MUST be premeditated for women.
women have a lot of non-violent avenues to take advantage of. again, If I was a kid, and realllly wanted my parents gone, id probably just say they molested me, and get them arrested. I doubt men have these same avenues. (in fact, as a kid who could not support themself, I would actually likely have MORE consequences than an adult woman who made an analogous accusation, in either outcome)

Dashing2025 · 2023-12-19T14:56:53+00:00

Are there statistics that show us gender split amounts of deaths and hospitalizations from domestic violence?

Title	How do i respond to people who claim that domestic violence against women is more serious bec. It result in more death than the other way around?
Author	mohyo324
Upvotes	39
Comments	39
Date	December 18, 2023 10:27 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/18lli4r/how_do_i_respond_to_people_who_claim_that/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/how-do-i-respond-to-people-who-claim-that-domestic.1241132 https://theredarchive.com/post/1241132

Comments