~ archived since 2018 ~

BBC shows 80% homicide victims are male. Tries to spin it around by giving it the title "Women are much more likely to be killed by someone close to them"

December 27, 2018
2394 upvotes
post image

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/MensRights.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title BBC shows 80% homicide victims are male. Tries to spin it around by giving it the title "Women are much more likely to be killed by someone close to them"
Author TheSpaceDuck
Upvotes 2394
Comments 115
Date December 27, 2018 5:18 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit /r/MensRights
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/bbc-shows-80-homicide-victims-are-male-tries-to.887621
https://theredarchive.com/post/887621
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/aa12c2/bbc_shows_80_homicide_victims_are_male_tries_to/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 446 points447 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

SCANDAL! 64% OF MURDERS VICTIMS FROM INTIMATE PARTNERS AND FAMILY ARE WOMEN!!!

Ah also 80% of all murder victims are men or something like that

[–]dogkindrepresent 143 points144 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If it's going to counter it could say "But some percent of murderers are men."

Murder statistics like this are a stupid thing to make a competition over.

It also comes with the territory. Men are more prone to violence. They're also more prone getting things done. In fact, were it not for tendencies of men several billion humans wouldn't be around today because they'd be starving and dying of cholera.

Each sex has pros and cons, they're often intrinsically linked and in general the statistics thing is just getting stupid. It's anti-male and anti-female to try to level the statistics and erase each sex in the process insisting they must be the same.

[–]Bosilaify 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well said

[–]Procrastibator666 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And it's basically a 1:1 ration of men to women

https://countrymeters.info/en/United_Kingdom_(UK)#Population_clock

[–]tenchineuro 83 points84 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

When percentages are used it's usually to hide the real numbers. For example in another thread a (presumably) female poster was claiming that in Australia one woman was killed by a partner every week. I asked about the number of men, she had to look it up, there were 12 (no doubt these numbers are off), so that comes to 12 men and 52 women in a country of 24 million, Both numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

So let's look at the numbers here. These numbers are for England and Wales BTW,

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017

Main points

  • There were 709 homicides in the year ending March 2017, 141 more (25% increase) than in the previous year, this includes the 96 cases of manslaughter that resulted from events at Hillsborough in 1989; excluding these the number of homicides increased by 8%.

  • The number of male victims has increased at a faster rate than females in recent years with male victims of homicide increasing by 33% to 433 (excluding Hillsborough victims) from 325 in the year ending March 2015, ending a generally downward trend.

  • The number of female homicide victims has remained broadly flat over the last five years (fewer than 200).

  • There were 12 offences of homicide per million population in the year ending March 2017 (10 homicides per million population excluding Hillsborough victims).

  • Excluding Hillsborough victims, the homicide rate for males (15 per million population) was more than twice that for females (6 per million population).

  • Women were far more likely to be killed by partners or ex-partners (50% of female victims aged 16 and over compared with 3% of male victims aged 16 and over), whereas men were more likely to be killed by friends or acquaintances (32% of male victims aged 16 and over compared with 10% of female victims aged 16 and over).

  • The most common method of killing was by knife or other sharp instrument with 215 victims killed in this way, accounting for 30% of homicides.

The raw numbers are 433 male murder victims and oddly they don't give a number for women and say "fewer than 200". Let's see, they say 709 homicides, so 709 - 433 is 276, that can't be it, so they must be excluding Hillsborough for some reason, SO that would leave 276 - 96 = 180 women, why can't they just say so?

The murder rate for men is twice that of women. I'd expected it to be a lot less, so this is a surprise.

Regarding the Hillsborough victims, near as I can tell there were 89 males and 7 females (so my number above is slightly off). I don't even see why they are mentioned Hillsborough in homicides, it was a stadium collapse and no one was found liable. Oh wait..

  • the 96 deaths that occurred at Hillsborough in 1989 were recorded as manslaughters in the year ending March 2017 following the verdict of the Hillsborough Inquest in April 2016

So that's why the 1989 disaster is showing in the 2017 statistics.

EDIT:

OK, reading down a bit further...

Sex

  • The majority of homicide victims were male in the year ending March 2017 (71%, 433 victims) and 29% were female (180 victims).

But it occurred to me that I did not find the actual number of men and women murdered by their partners.

How are victims and suspects related?

Adult victims

  • There were large differences in the victim-suspect relationship between men and women. Half of female adult victims aged 16 and over were killed by their partner or ex-partner1 (82 homicides) in the year ending March 2017. In contrast, only 3% of male victims aged 16 and over were killed by their partner or ex-partner (13 offences, see Appendix Table 9 and Figure 4).

  • Male adults were most likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance, with around one-quarter (24%, 112 victims) killed by such people in the year ending March 2017. Female victims were less likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance (10%, 16 offences).

I just realized that they say "partner" throughout, They never say the sex of the partner, so for all we know a majority of these murders were to same-sex couples. The way things are worded you kind of assume opposite-sex partners, but that is not spelled out in the report at all. I have read to the end and nowhere do they say that partner murders were opposite sex. And as in Australia, these numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant. As dogkindrepresent says, you stand a better chance of being killed crossing the street without looking both ways first.

[–]dogkindrepresent 27 points28 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

There's a really old onion article talking about something ridiculously specific still being the 30000th cause of death (I think slipping on a construction site and sliding down a chute or something). This kind of reminds me of that. Being murdered rates pretty low. I think suicide might be even more common by a factor of at least two.

People talking about how your murderer is usually close, I don't think they realise how close. If age doesn't kill you, the next possibility is overwhelmingly either deliberate or negligent suicide.

You're several times more likely to kill yourself by forgetting to look both ways when you cross the road or something equivalent.

Just compare homocides per year to deaths per year. It'll be a very small slice of the pie.

[–]GingerRazz 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I can't think of the source, but I recall reading that suicide is actually 7x as common as homicide.

[–]dogkindrepresent 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It depends on the country so I've played it safe. For the UK though where homocide is particularly low, that sounds close enough to not even bother to search for it. I think actually 7X is for the USA. Nope. Apparently 3.5X for the USA. Including unwilful suicide (Darwin awards, death avoidable through default levels of paying attention or thinking ahead) though would almost certainly bring it up at least that high.

[–]GingerRazz 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that might be where I got the 7x number. I thought it implied suicide when it said "the person 7x as likely to kill you compared to everyone else is yourself". In thinking about that, it would make sense if it included death from stupidity and not just suicide.

[–]dogkindrepresent 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It might also be from something selective like gun deaths. It rings a bell for me as well but I can't remember which. Though it could be any other 7X figure related to death I've heard :D.

Implied suicide is very hard to measure. It's very grey. For example in my book Steve Jobs committed suicide trying mystical remedies rather than what the doctor prescribed. A quick Google search finds others of this opinion. Not only that but my religion teaches me that putting too much effort into living is cheating and that if you can't face the challenge alone with what you've got then you deserve to die (trying). Extreme medical treatments are forbidden and others weighed up. Self reliance and making the most out of what you have are fundamental. It's also in line with evolution and not cheating it. My religion is against cheating, even death, so anything that might be needed to be carefully evaluated.

Often suicide is hidden. For example I had a relative that committed suicide but it's painted as an accident taking the wrong combination of medicines.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male adults were most likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance, with around one-quarter (24%, 112 victims) killed by such people in the year ending March 2017. Female victims were less likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance (10%, 16 offences).

Male adults killed by a friend or acquaintance... because they were competing for a woman or someone had slept with someone's wife, etc. I wonder in how many cases that would be a motivating factor, and I'd imagine it won't get mentioned anywhere if it was significant.

[–][deleted] 123 points124 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are way more likely to kill someone close than men. And make 80% of child murders. So?

[–]victorfiction 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FezoaStaler -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

the kids might be woman too, idk

[–]PaulMurrayCbr 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In similar news, more homeless women are homeless as a result of drug abuse or mental illness than men.

Yah - that's because women, in general, don't wind up homeless as a consequence of simply running out of money.

[–]algepaul 41 points42 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Men kill -> Men are criminals // Men get killed -> 😴 zzz

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

thats probably because the percentage of men being the killer is 96% while the percentage of men being the victim is only 80% which means that most incidents are men on men but only one fifth of opposite gender homicides are women killing men.

[–]algepaul 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Black men in jail -> OMG STOP JAILING OUR BLACK YOUTH. // White men in jail -> 😴 zzz

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

You do realise the number of men being killed is bigger than the number of male killers and the difference is even higher for other forms of violent crime, right?

Killers are a minuscule segment of the population while victims can be any one of us. So yes, if 80% of victims are of one gender then it should be much more relevant.

Your logic is the same as claiming there's nothing wrong with blacks being killed in the US since they commit most murder despite being a minority.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You do realise that 80 is not more than 96, right?

This discussion is only about bad arguments, so unless you are talking to someone with a different opinion than yours, just bringing up different arguments for your position instead of defending the ones attacked is useless.

Your logic is the same as claiming whites are still oppressing blacks just because they die of murder more often but ignoring that most of the blacks dying by murder are killed by their own race.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You do realise that 80 is not more than 96, right?

It's 96% of all murders and 80% of all VICTIMS, do you know how statistics work? If group A is much smaller than group B then 80% of group B is going to be bigger than 96% of group A obviously. Shouldn't you learn that in 7th grade maths or something? There are much more victims than murderers, which means 80% of victims is indeed a much bigger number. Just check how many men are killed every year and how many of them kill and see which is bigger.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to someone but you for example are at risk of being a victim of murder at any time, but not at risk of being a murderer (I hope). Claiming it's not a problem that men have to fear for their lives because they're men by claiming they are the same as a very tiny fraction of the population (murderers) not only says you don't really care about victims but has no other possibly explanation apart from misandry.

ignoring that most of the blacks dying by murder are killed by their own race

And why should that matter for the victims unless you already have prejudice against blacks and confirmation bias? This has nothing to do with "oppression", it's simply the ridiculous concept that somehow people who fear for their lives don't have to fear anymore if the killer has the same race/gender as them. Please tell a black person in a problematic neighbourhood "well it's your own kind doing it" and see how they react, I'm waiting.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not saying it's okay that blacks are being killed because it's from their own kind, I just said that it's not whites who are oppressing them. And as you said, it has nothing to do with "oppression".

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody here said the reason why most murder victims are men is "women oppressing them". Why would you even think that? The reason is a general lack of empathy towards men. The same lack of empathy that causes measures and laws to make women feel safe even though men are at a much greater risk of violent crime and workplace fatalities only being taken seriously in the rare instance of women being involved.

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 27 points28 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The only way to stop this insane shit is to vote with your dollars. Stop allowing your money to go to places that report or behave this way. Eventually they'll catch a clue or go out of business.

[–]Imergence 57 points58 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Problem is: BBC is basically funded by the tax payer so you don't have a choice

[–]RingosTurdFace 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The license fee isn’t mandatory, but if you do stop paying you can’t have any display equipment capable of receiving a broadcast transmission and you’ll get bothered until you die by the TV license people. They don’t believe that anyone could live without a TV and you’ll constantly live under their shadow of suspicion.

But other than that, you don’t have to pay!

[–]pauliogazzio 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Problem is they just keep harassing you, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[–]tothecatmobile 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can go to the website and fill out the form to say you don't need a TV licence.

Or you can just ignore them.

[–]tothecatmobile 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can still have a TV if you don't pay the TV licence, you just can't use it to watch any live TV broadcasts, or the BBC or ITV catch up services.

So Netflix, Amazon etc are perfectly fine.

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Problematic but not insurmountable. Someone is assigning those funds somewhere. Do they need to be re-elected. In short, there has to be a way to communicate displeasure.

Additionally, BBC makes a lot of money off things like DVD sales, no?

EDIT: Words

[–]xNOM 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually this graph doesn't show that at all. The fraction of all murderers who are partners or family members is not given. Is there a link to the full article?

[–]kavanaughstraw 12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Very cunning of the BBC to show bias towards one gender over the other. See how male is grey, but this grey is usually akin to 'being greyed out' as in 'not available' or 'not applicable' type of thing. Why didn't they make 'male' blue or green or something more visible? And then they don't explicitly mention '80%' on the right side. They mentioned it for the '20%' but why not for the 80%? The way their graphs and headlines are presented they only care about women.

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They do this frequently with polls and surveys, I caught out sky news not publishing a figure on Brexit and a number of the news outlets do it where they claim a certain percentage of Britains want to remain in the UK but they don't provide the source for their claims and they don't list the poll sampling.

Everybody needs to be aware of this sort of tactic, I don't even trust polls and so on when it comes to stuff I might agree with because it's just such flimsy 'science'. The worse part is not that they post it up in the first place, they spam it everywhere and do nothing to correct themselves when they know it's wrong.

If a news site or person posts up a percentage and doesn't provide a source for their polling or show how many people are in this percentage they are usually full of shit.

[–]Shumble91 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

More men than women are colour blind... If you added blue or green alongside the red, more men than women wouldn't be able to see it

As MRA's I would have thought you'd be aware of that! 😂

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

More men than women are colour blind... If you added blue or green alongside the red, more men than women wouldn't be able to see it

Yeah, that's primarily red-green color blindness, and the female part of the graph is red. So I would think (not being color blind) that a color blind person would not be able to see the graph easily as it is, if at all.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

because that's not what this article is about. It's about where women get killed the most, and this indirectly (you also need the percentage of murders being performed by partners/family members, basic statistic knowledge which the writers of the article don't seem to have and a calculator) shows 92% of murders against females are done by family members or partners.

Instead, you could complain about why they didn't show the 92% of females getting killed in this occasion rather than the 64% of people being killed under these circumstances being female, as their statistics seem to be about gender bias instead of the point of the article.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

why they didn't show the 92% of females getting killed in this occasion rather than the 64% of people being killed under these circumstances being female

Because 92% of female victims fitting one pattern doesn't mean 92% of victims fitting that pattern are female. It wouldn't even belong together with 80% of all murder victims being male.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

me differenciating between these numbers already implies that one isn't the same as the other. I don't understand what you mean when you say that some statistics don't "belong together", but it's clear that the information needed to draw a conclusion is not included in the article which draws this exact conclusion. The question is why they leave out the percentage of homicides being caused by an acquaintance of the victim and the actual number supporting the claim.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand what you mean when you say that some statistics don't "belong together"

Because they were both put in the same picture and with one title (which ignored the actual numbers of all murder victims). So if you put them in the same picture yes you should make sure it makes sense.

[–]azazelcrowley 13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women are less likely to be killed my friends, family members, and acquaintances actually. So it's a spooky fear mongering title that misleads just to fuck with womens heads anyway. But besides that;

Around 83 women per year in the UK are killed (Through murder or manslaughter or homicide in general in the case of self-defense) by partners per year. To put that in perspective;

45 accidentally hang themselves somehow, and 103 die from choking to death on food. 61 die from "Exposure to forces of nature" (Wind, lightning, etc.), and 58 drink to the point of immediate overdose.

764 of them kill themselves through self-harm, and 215 die as a result of medical complications after treatment.

The total number of deaths per year is 598,694.

DV Funding for women in the UK is 19 million per year. (Much of it spent on lobbying, paying exorbitant salaries to professional feminists, and campaigning to misinform the public, but let's ignore that and note that feminists are going apeshit over this in order to get more funding for their issue, despite the fact they already have far too much as they are housing abusers as well as the abused, and to demonize men further to lower empathy for them, and make women paranoid and pro-feminist in their mindset.)

The salary of Sandra Holey (One such professional DV Feminist) is around £220,000 a year (Around 0.1% of the total budget, just for one.)

To put that in perspective the NHS in total has 127 billion pounds per year dedicated to it.

We spend billions winding women up to convince them they are under attack and men are dangerous. It's probably fairly straightforwardly true that these feminist hate campaigns are more deadly to women in the public in terms of wasting societies time and attention than men are. That's before you get into the negative consequences their hate campaign has for men.

It's also intuitively true that you're going to have to spend more money to convince an abuser to seek shelter than the abused, and that's what we're doing basically. The majority of domestic violence is initiated by women, and the overwhelming majority of unilateral abuse is perpetrated by women. This also has consequences in terms of waste when it comes to public campaigns to alter "attitudes" to curb the phenomena, throwing more and more money at the problem because it won't resolve itself due to how idiotic, dogmatic, and self-defeating the feminist movement is. That is, they're dogmatic morons if you're being charitable to them. If you're being uncharitable you can interpret this as the deliberate dynamic they've set up to ensure a steady supply of cash for themselves and for their media campaign to demonize men, knowing full well that it won't actually impact domestic violence figures for them to receive more money because the problem that remains overwhelmingly isn't male perpetrated.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and 103 die from choking to death on food.

That's a higher number than the ones being killed byh their partners. I guess according to feminist logic our society has a culture of food choking and we should deal with the misogynistic threat of food ASAP.

[–]Galaxine 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think both sets of numbers are important to know and to understand. Men make up the majority of the victims and that is critically important. But if it is true that women are more likely to be killed by partners or acquaintances then it is important to make your sisters, nieces, etc aware of that fact.

Knowing how men and women become victims, to me, leads to the answers of how best to protect them. If a group is disproportionately likely to be kidnapped or killed or what have you you'd protect them in different ways.

But this looks like an attempt to downplay murder rates for men by tugging at heartstrings. It is awful that women are more likely to be killed by their partners. But it is awful that men face higher murder rates all around and we're not solving it.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course. Both statistics are important and if displayed separate they would be a good source of insight. However when bundled together to mask the fact that murder (and violent crime) victims are overwhelmingly male that's not so noble anymore.

[–]SurturOfMuspelheim 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean if the point of the article was to point out the disparity between who kills the victim then there is nothing wrong with this graph/post. Yes it ignored that the vast majority of homicide victims are men? Yes. But that doesn't inherently make looking at why women are mostly killed by a loved one bad.

[–]None_of_your_Beezwax 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of males killing males and females killing females. We know, for example, that most child killing are committed by females (someone said 80% in the thread but I don't have a source at hand). We also know that females are more likely to commit unreciprocated violence and that lesbian relationships are the most violent type (gay men being by far the least).

Add that to the fact that female murderers are much more likely to get the same incident classed as self-defence or accidental, and it seem not entirely implausible the the real rate is close to 50%.

I would have expected the headline number to be much larger than 64% given what we know about the treatment of women by law-enforcement.

[–]jaheiner 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Amazing, people who get to know them best are more likely to kill them.

[–]masterdebator300 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

LOL

[–]heard_enough_crap 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

where is the social equality. We need equal homicide rates for women.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If we can't stop men from being killed, we'll just have to go the other direction.

[–]masterdebator300 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We should make women kill more men.

[–]gsbiz 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can we please get a link to the original article, otherwise it is just hearsay. Thanks.

[–]p0rnpop 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you really dig into the data, if it is the same one I looked up long ago, you'll see it is because police don't investigate relationships men had with their killers so the vast majority are marked unknown. If you read the real report, it should have something in the fine print saying "where the relationship was known" or such which will then be left off by most websites quoting the information.

[–]dogkindrepresent 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the second time I've seen the BBC do this so I'm assuming it always does it. There's always a yeh but... The Little Britain Broadcasting Company?

[–]andejoh 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women are actually a lot more likely to kill someone close to them as well.

[–]masterdebator300 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I read somewhere that women kill children more often than men do. U should look that up. Idk though. I myself am against abortion so in my view women are killing thousands of unborn babies every year or so. Thats just my opinion though. Its not popular but i think it evens out the murder ratio between men and women. Which helps clear some male stereotypes.

[–]--Edog-- 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are far less likely to be involved in violent crimes, brawls, armed robberies, drug dealing, gang activity, and all other situations in the public sphere where men are likely killed.

[–]DocsDelorean 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So men are more likely to be killed randomly

[–]CplGrammar 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Anyone else reading this as “of the 20% of women that are homicide victims, 67% are from someone close to them”? 2/3 is a staggering statistic regardless of what you’re looking at.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't say 64% of women that are homicide victims are killed by someone close to them but from murders of someone close to one, 64% are on women. If you apply these 64% to the percentage of murders performed by people close to the victim and compare that to the number of women killed by anyone, which is 20%, you get as a result that 92.4% of women who are killed by someone else are killed by a person close to them. Since 92.4% are actually more than 64%, you can't say making people mistake the percentage of people being killed by a close person being female for the percentage of women killed by a close person out of the number of women murdered in total is staggering. At most, it would be downplaying the actual numbers, but only for people who are easily fooled by percentages.

[–]TruthGetsBanned 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I love how the quoted statement tacitly admits that the better someone knows a woman, the more likely they are to kill her.

[–]ProblemKaese -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Statistically, this is true, even though it works for men too. First of all, it's harder to identify a murderer if he wasn't associated with the victim, which means that even if there were exactly as many murders by close people as by strangers, of most murders that were solved, which would mean that you know whether the killer was a stranger or not, the murderer would be an acquaintance.

Besides that, when you don't know somebody, you tend to have fewer motivation to kill them.

[–]summonblood 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

64% of X% of 20% of homocides are women. This is a serious problem!

[–]lesbefriendly 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

64% of X% of 20% of homocides are women.

They're being even sneakier than you give them credit for.
It's 64% of people killed by their partner, not 64% of the 20% of women killed.

It could be 100 000 murders per year, with 100 of them being committed by a partner. That would mean 64 of 20 000 murdered women are killed by a partner each year (figures pulled from my arse to illustrate the deception), or 0.32% of women are killed by a partner.

Edit:
The source seems to be this, an analysis specifically looking at violence/homicide against women and girls.
From what I can tell, the actual rate of homicide by family/partner is 0.3 per 100 000 (for Scotland, couldn't see the whole of the UK). The rate for homicide of women by a partner is 0.1 per 100 000 (one in a million).
This puts the intentional homicide of women at 16 for 2016 (for Scotland).
If I've done my maths correctly, that means about 8 of the 16 women and 4 of the 48 men were killed by an intimate partner or family member (in Scotland, 2016). Though I think I might have the wrong data set, as the percentage of murdered women is 25% (16f:48m), not 20%.

[–]summonblood 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that’s why I said 64% of X%. X being the percent of homicides that are from partners & family members, which like you pointed out is a really small percentage.

And yeah when you do the breakdown you see that percentages are intentionally misleading to give the numbers a bigger number so it seems like a bigger problem.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's 18.5%, according to the 64% of homicides by close ones on women and 28.9% of homicides in general by close ones.

[–]summonblood 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So it would be .64 x .185 x .2 = .02368 or 2.358% of all homicides are women killed by their partners....This....is.....outrageous!!!

Wait, Isn’t that the a lower percentage than having a false allegation? Which is so slow low you shouldn’t even worry about it?? Right SJWs?!

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I meant 18.5% of homicide victims are women killed by their partners, already did the calculations for you. I did not fill in your X, as your calculation does not make sense in the given context. A little table for better understanding:

male female
by acquaintance 10.4% 18.5% 28.9%
by stranger 69.6% 1.5% 71.1%
80% 20% 100%

So you get the number of homicides on females by acquaintances by applying the 64% to the 28.9%.

The number the article is about, even though not mentioned in the article itself, is the comparison of the percentage of having a female being killed by an acquaintence, which is 18.5%, to the probability of a female being killed by someone else, which is 1.5%. If you only round your numbers in the last step, you get a probability of 92%.

Because that is only part of the female column, it does not suggest any gender bias, (meaning it would be worthless for most SJWs) but what the article title said is heavily supported by this number.

[–]raffu280 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like all "victim groups" now, they constantly have to portray themselves as martyrs and heroes by distorting, exaggerating and censoring everything now.

[–]peanutbutterjams 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

2 out of 10 women are homeless.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

2 out of 10 women are homeless.

Isn't that '2 out of 10 homeless are women'?

[–]peanutbutterjams 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

hahaha it totally should be that, yeah, my bad.

[–]Weeeelums 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait what the f-

[–]LizardIsLove 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Is it 64% of the initial 20%?

[–]ProblemKaese 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

no, it's 64% of the total number of people killed by acquaintances, which is 28.9% of all homicides. 64% of 28.9% is 18.5% and that divided by 20% is 92%, so 92% of homicides on women are done by people close to them.

[–]crooney36 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I wonder what percentage of killings by family are of all homicides :thinking:

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

28.9%

[–]galtthedestroyer 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your title should have focused on how they said something to the effect of, "women are the gender most affected by homicides." Sorry, is bean a while and I don't want to read it again.

[–]Fllamber 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just delete bbc already

[–]SOwED 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All this means is that women's parking lot fear is less valid than men's.

[–]nzalex 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've been visiting family in England recently, and I've also noticed another thing.

In the build up to Christmas, they were pumping out news stories about the homeless, and out of all of the news stories I don't think I even saw 1 female homeless person either interviewed or in any of their candid shots.

I said to my partner, "I bet you'll never hear about how homeless are a majority of men"

To which she asked why...

I said I couldn't tell you for certain, but I googled UK homeless statistics and came across this just a quick glance you'll see that a majority of the thumbnails are pictures of women and one infographic illudes that 3/8 of women are homeless, however it buried on page 6 of this (PDF) you'll find the gender statistics. Men are overwhelmingly represented in homeless! But the document still seems to paint it as a women's issue...

(Taken from the document, and I've copied everything it say so I'm not just cutting out the the bits I want, and sorry for formatting, I'm on mobile)

Demographics (gender)

• Of the 4,751 individuals counted or estimated to be sleeping rough in England in 2017, a total of 3,965 were male, 653 were female and 133 were gender unknown.

• 14% of total number of rough sleepers were women.

• South East England reported the largest number of women sleeping rough (183) (Graph 7).

• Other regions that have high numbers of women sleeping rough includes London (133) and East England (97).

• Camden is the local authority with the largest number of women sleeping rough (Table 3).

Edit: attempt at formatting

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My pedagogy teacher keeps saying that boys tend to be less responsible by nature, giving girls an advantage in school.

That suggests that the gender bias may be solved in this regard if the schools changed their systems, but it also may mean that it's the mens own fault for being homeless. At least, "It's their nature" may be true, but still is a bad excuse for being irresponsible.

By the way, I don't know how true that premise is, but it explains the statistics very well.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ever took a look at who actually kills them in the global statistics? It's 94% men, which is more than the 80% of victims being male from the article. So in general, men get involved in homicide with a higher probability, may it be as the victim or as the one responsible, and when women get involved in one, they have a higher probability of being the one getting killed.

So the BBC source about all homicides doesn't give you any valuable information if you don't have context, and with the context they give it just shows exactly what they wrote in the title. If you give other context to the statistic, as I did, you don't get anything to "spin around", because what you get already makes women look better.

Besides that, what they actually wrote in the title doesn't have to do with spinning anything around, as the claim is neutral and would still work if for example 25% of Killings by partner or family member had female victims, in which case anybody would think that women are suppressing men.

(source of 94% of homicide perpetrators being male)

Edit: I just noticed the people who wrote the article have no clue how to deduct a conclusion from a statistic. According to this source, only 28.9% of murders were committed by partner or family. If you multiply that percentage by the 64% from the BBC statistic, you get 18.5%. If you divide that by the 20% from the statistic, you get 92.3%. That is the probability of a woman being killed by a partner or family member rather than by anyone else. But you don't seem to be able to find that number anywhere.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Cool they just proved that womens paranoia of going running at night is exactly that paranoia. Men should be the afraid of it apparently.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

this is a global statistic so it may not say very much about life in cities because in comparison to war etc. there are very few homicides in cities.

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

BBC is staffed by feminists and man haters. Simples.

[–]rayan2002 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Reminds of statistic I saw once, Something like "1:4 woman were assaulted" my first reaction was how to hell did 3/4 not get assaulted? I genuinely thought it was a normal life occurrence for all adults to be assaulted, I mean come on, You piss off someone in school and he brings his friends, You get in a fight with a gang member in a pub, Any of the gagillion reasons someone might beat you up, It's like 1:1 of all adult men get assaulted at least once in their lifetime

[–]chambertlo -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s sad that the only way feminism has any clout it’s when it lies and twists information in their favor.

[–]Paterno_Ster 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't. Lmao.

[–]shitpostsuzy -5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Were the perpetrators overwhelmingly male? I see what you’re saying here, but all I’m getting is that the majority of shooters are male and they tend to kill more men than women.

[–]ProblemKaese 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, they were. According to this source, 94% of perpetrators were male. That means that there are more male killers than male victims, so actually you can only conclude that men are more likely to get involved in a crime, and if they are, they are less likely to be the one getting killed.

[–]shitpostsuzy 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ziiiiing!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That's a difficult way of saying 12.8% of all murders are domestic violence against women, but I guess the truth doesn't sound as good without it being convoluted. 64% is bigger than 12.8% when you're an idiot and don't understand they are the same.

Edit: this is wrong see my comment below for the correction.

[–]ProblemKaese -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

the 64% is not the percentage of women being killed by partners but killed partners being women, so multiplying that with the 20% won't get you the percentage of homicides being on females and by their partners.

Instead, that tells you that worldwide, in most of the homicide cases, the victims are male, while in the household, most of the victims are female, leading up to the comparison made in the title of the article of the household being a more common place for females to be killed.

Edit: I accidentaly wrote chance instead of percentage and changed that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I never mentioned chance so not sure where that came from however your argument may be valid, I am not sure as I can't follow what you are saying. I tried, it just ended up not being very coherent. For instance, household? That is an assumption. All we know for certain, is these are people the women are related to. We don't know the murderer's actual relationship to the victim, their gender or where they actually live. Since we know studies have shown women are more likely than men to kill their domestic partner or a family member, see source below, there is a good chance many of these deaths where at the hands of other women. A fact that would conflate their narrative if disclosed. Since they are leaving out important facts. In other words, lying by omission, the BBC loses credibility.

None the less, upon farther review I realize in my first post I was making an assumption, an incorrect one at that, which makes the dishonesty of the BBC even worse. These two lines have no direct correlation to one another. We are being told the total amount of murders overall by gender in the 1st line, nothing more. And the percentage of women and men killed by someone they know in the second line with no context on how many that is. It could literally be 20 people for all we know meaning 13 women are killed by someone they know. With nothing else to go on the way this is presented is as good as a lie. People assume things grouped together are related. Knowing this the BBC has intentionally misrepresented statistics inorder to push their narrative. This is what lead myself to make my initial incorrect assumption.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1635092/

[–]ProblemKaese 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

yeah im sorry I was really tired yesterday and that 2nd part I wrote was actual bullshit. You do need more information than what the article gives you to come to the conclusion the article draws.

What that first part was supposed to mean is that to get the percentage of homicides being on a female victim and by a partner or family member, you need the percentage of homicides on females being done by a partner or family member instead of the percentage of homicides done by a partner or family member having a female victim.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree. It's a very Cherry picked and manipulative image that relies heavily on ignorance and blind Faith in a particular ideology.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But i don't think this is cherry picking as the conclusion was right, they just don't understand numbers well enough to support it.

[–]HovisTMM -5 points-4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

64% of 20% is 12.8%

What is the breakdown of men killed by the same category and is it more than 12.8% of all murders?

[–]Veeecad 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Would that be 36% of 80%? If so, 28.8% of all murders.

[–]HovisTMM -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No, there are two different numbers for men and women, they've only shown the one for women.

[–]Veeecad 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You're right. My bad. I totally misinterpreted that graph.

Shame, too, considering my post on here got me autobanned from r/rape for ' participating in a hate subreddit.' Lucky me.

[–]HovisTMM 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not banned and I've posted on here several times.

[–]Veeecad 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"You've been banned from participating in r/rape • 56m You have been banned from participating in r/rape. You can still view and subscribe to r/rape, but you won't be able to post or comment.

Note from the moderators:

You have been automatically banned for participating in a hate subreddit. /r/mensrights is also known to harass our community.

I am a bot, and I cannot determine context. If you plan to stop supporting /r/mensrights, we are willing to reverse the ban.

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/rape by replying to this message."

Sorry for ugly looking copy/paste. On mobile now.

[–]HovisTMM 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't doubt you, I was just saying it hadn't happened to me. In fairness I haven't posted on that sub so maybe I just am unaware of the ban.

That is downright disgusting. If a user of MR gets raped, that sub is completely off limits. Despicable.

[–]summonblood 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually it’s 64% of homocides by a partner or family member, of which the total is unknown. So it’s 64% of X% of 20%.

[–]tenchineuro 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

64% of 20% is 12.8%

You can't handle percentages like numbers. You need to recalculate from the raw numbers. You can slice and dice the raw numbers any way you want, but the same operations are invalid when dealing with percentages and ratios.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

why would you say that when dealing with the percentages like raw numbers would lead to a result 1280%, which isn't what Hovis got. Still, calculating 64% of 20% is worthless because it completely ignores the meanings of the numbers. The number you are trying to use here is the percentage of murders being committed by acquaintances, which I had to look up at another source.

male female
by acquaintance 10.4% 18.5% 28.9%
by stranger 69.6% 1.5% 71.1%
80% 20% 100%

[–]masterdebator300 -2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If these stats are true. I wouldnt say that 64% is MUCH more. Its just more. 75 85 would be much more but thats just me being nitpicky.

[–]ProblemKaese -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

According to this source, a total of 28.9% of murders were committed by partner or family. If you multiply that percentage by the 64% from the BBC statistic, you get 18.5%. If you divide that by the 20% from the statistic, you get 92.3%. That is the probability of a woman being killed by a partner or family member rather than by anyone else.

If you ask me, 92.3% is even higher than 85%.

[–]masterdebator300 -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Why are u multiplying it by the bbc statistic? Also what exactly are u multiplying? 28 x 64 is approx 1800... Be more clear in your explanation ur very confusing.

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

you can't just multyply 28 by 64 and leave out the %. I didn't expect you to not know this but % means that you divide it by 100. So 28% by 64% equals 0.28 * 0.64 which is 0.18, so 18%.

To your question what I'm multiplying: I labled the 28.9% as the percentage of murders being committed by a partner or family member and the BBC statistics already are labled, which means that you should also know that the 64% is the percentage of these murders having a female victim.

[–]masterdebator300 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No not what. Why... Slso thanks for learing that up in the forst part idk why that flew over my head. But why are u multiplying these two stats?

[–]ProblemKaese 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

the article claimed that women are more likely to be killed by people close to them rather than anyone else.

To get the chance of getting killed by someone close to you under the assumption that you are a woman, you just need to divide the percentage of homicides being on women by close people by the percentage of homicides being on women.

Since you already have the percentage of homicides being on women, you only need the percentage of homicides having female victims and being performed by people close to them.

The chance of a murder being done by someone close to you is, as stated above, 28.9%. The percentage of those people being female is 64%. So 64% of 28.9% of all murder has female victims and is done by people close to them. Simplified, 64% of 28.9% is 64% * 28.9%, which is 18%.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter