[–]tortillastomper 235 points236 points237 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]hthomp 46 points47 points48 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryaniskira 98 points99 points100 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jostler57 56 points57 points58 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ctrl_Alt_Abstergo 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tortillastomper 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]upper_monkey_horny -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilentKiller96 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Abbysol 168 points169 points170 points 7 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

I know this is going to make you guys mad but the evidence is actually of the exact opposite.

Men kill more children than women do by a pretty significant margin, it's just that men commit many more murders in general which make murders of children by women stand out statistically, that is simply because in the US mothers spend more time with children than fathers.

"male perpetrators somewhat outnumber female perpetrators (58 percent and 42 percent, respectively) in homicides of young children, females are involved in these homicides more often than in homicides of victims of any other age (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997)"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187239.pdf

It takes a special kind of shitty person to note that men kill significantly more young children and then claim that "women need to learn to not kill children".

Just the facts.

[–]boringcarpets 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Except that is firstly a different question and secondly false. Children being more likely to be killed by their mother than their father does not mean women are more likely to kill children than men are (what the OP says) secondly several other studies find quite the opposite for example:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf

Finds men are responsible for 61.9% of murders of their children:

(Table 3.2) so y'know... facts.

[–]boringcarpets 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

About 94% of your cases reported the difference between perp and victim, what exactly about the non reporting is it that you think makes the data useless and why is it ok if the data is 5.5% or 44% if you think either introduces a variable that makes the data suspect then it makes both sets of data worthless, after all a 5.5% discrepancy would be huge it could completely reverse the findings of your study if it turned out all those had been say committed by men.

So either the data is unreliable by a margin that could completely reverse either study (in which case you have zero evidence for your claim) or there is no reason to believe that the significant unaccounted for % would lean in any given direction and both studies stand, you pick but you can't have it both ways.

[–]boringcarpets 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mynameischad01 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

Firstly you haven't even given a source in your op, you hosted some Images.

Secondly yes suggesting the FBI is biased in a conspiracy against men is flat out retarded (yes the vastly male organisation is out to be biased against men for sure).

Thirdly yes actual criminal data is more valuable.

The biggest metastudy of worldwide data did conclude women killed significantly more children incidentally

Please cite and quote where it says that?

Going to continue this in edits because of the comment wait time.

[–]Mynameischad01 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I immediately posted the source which has been upvoted and is easy to find.

Nobody is using the melodramatic word “conspiracy”, but I am suggesting a crime agency is going to be less used to controlling for cultural biases than scholars in an academic study.

You might want to look up the definition of “neonatal” before claiming those figures include abortion (which would be utterly absurd incidentally and would quite obviously render the study completely pointless). The report is quite clear it’s referring to newborns being murdered in cold blood. Which as far as I know isn’t legal anywhere, and is fully accepted as homicide, but do correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyway, as you apparently struggle to read, the relevant line from the study is this: “Data from 33 countries distinguishing the perpetrators of parental homicides of children under the age of 18 years showed that mothers committed just over half of all parental homicides (median 54.7%, IQR 36.7–68.8)”

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is using the melodramatic word “conspiracy”, but I am suggesting a crime agency is going to be less used to controlling for cultural biases than scholars in an academic study.

They are literally the crime stats unless you are suggesting murders aren't being counted then yes an accusation of bias is ridiculous.

The report is quite clear it’s referring to newborns being murdered in cold blood. Which as far as I know isn’t legal anywhere, and is fully accepted as homicide, but do correct me if I’m wrong.

You are wrong, laws on this vary very greatly as does ethical thought on where the line lies, for example in Israel or Denmark you can refuse care to an infant (or even smother them in a case discussed below) and it be legal or not be convicted, on the other hand in many countries partial birth abortions (which are legal in some countries and parts of the US) would be neonatal murder.

Furthermore the drastic difference in opportunity makes using this as a comparison point ridiculous.

“Data from 33 countries distinguishing the perpetrators of parental homicides of children under the age of 18 years showed that mothers committed just over half of all parental homicides (median 54.7%, IQR 36.7–68.8)”

True which accounting for margin of error is a minuscule difference (especially considering the opportunity issue considered before) it's also completely irrelevant to the US, as note din the study in high income areas men actually commit the majority of such murders, the data is skewed by places like Africa where about 90% were committed by women, my guess is this severe discrepancy is described by desperate need by mothers who simply can't feed their infants in places where alternative care is unavailable and thus kill them. In high income countries women committed only 44.4%.

One also has to wonder at the sheer stupidity of claiming an "epidemic" when the difference even if we accept the results of your study (and all their massive issues) is barely more than the margin of error.

[–]Mynameischad01 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

In any event, in my link in Europe it’s noted 60% of women are committing child homicides. Is that also a “minuscule” difference? Because that’s the agreed male/female domestic violence ratio by almost all measures, and feminists scream about that like it’s an epidemic of male violence.

Across the first world women are the minority (44%) so yes it's a less than insignificant difference.

As for the domestic homicide disparity your own source contradicts you:

"More than twothirds of intimate partner homicides involve a male perpetrator and a female victim, in comparison with the one-fifth of incidents in which the genders are reversed (Table 1)."

In other words women commit only 20% of fatal domestic abuse against men, significantly less than a third of the amount men commit against women. THAT is a large discrepancy, more than three times the amount.

[–]Mynameischad01 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Holy double standard batman. Make a post exclusively about the murders of children (apparently exclusively murders not in the first world because in the first world it's in majority done by men) then refuse to engage an argument on homicide when you raise domestic violence. Could you be more of a hypocrite if you tried?

If men being stronger means them committing more than 3 times more murders of their partners is explained then surely the tiny barely above margin of error association you find in your quoted study is completely explained by women simply being with children more and therefore your entire post is a joke. I mean it was before too but doubly so now.

[–]Mynameischad012 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Toparov2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

So a 5 year, much, much larger sample? His study also refers to difficulty in methodology, it being impossible to find statistics that are reliable or complete for a ton of poorer countries, neonatal stats in many countries etc. methodology issues are always inevitable in studies like this.

Plenty of sources from different periods find the same for example:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf

Finds men are responsible for 61.9% of murders of their offspring.

[–]boringcarpets 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LedZeppelin1602 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Abbysol 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

This is insane. What I said is exactly above your comment, that the OP is a crap lie that claims women are more likely to murder kids.

That is exactly what I said, anything else you read into it is your own issue and entirely in your head. If you somehow got that as "female abusers shouldn't be punished" you need professional help, my comment says nothing of the sort.

[–]Abbysol 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

All of those count in homicide statistics.

To make the equivalent argument of "teach women not to murder" it would help you guys look less like the absolute jokes you are if it wasn't based on a complete lie when in fact the opposite is true and men commit more murders of children, family and otherwise. If it was bait well it worked, I am baited and you guys are either idiots or liars given it was by your own admission "bait" it seems like liars.

If your argument is based on a lie or being incredibly wrong it's laughable.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf

http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/homicidechildrenyouth.pdf

[–]Vinterblad 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mynameischad01 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Toparov1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Thr0w4w4y757746 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]antilopes -74 points-73 points-72 points 7 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

It isn't just a social narrative. Read my comment below, men are far more violent to children per contact hour even if when a partner is present in the house.
When men are left on their own with a very young child the death rate goes through the roof.

Men have a higher total rate of killing older children regardless of contact hours. It is only for infants that women kill more children. The crossover in the US is at age eight, after that men increasingly take over killing duties.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/a8z3xu/wow_women_really_do_need_to_learn_to_not_kill/ecfkvbd/

It is revealing how men here who seem really excited by reciting facts which appears to show women in a poor light, suddenly lose interest in relevant facts when those fail to support the "women are evil" story.
FACTS AND LOGIC, my dudes.

[–]Wsing1974 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Auditor-G80GZT 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeneralDogsbody 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DirtyBoyzzz 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Macismyname 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Abbysol 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am acutely aware of women's abusive behavior. I spend a lot of time online with people abused in childhood and it is distinctly more often by their mothers than their fathers (except the small proportion sexually abused by a parent).
Your story is very familiar, there are countless ones like it at /r/RaisedByNarcissists with the same elements - two-faced mother played nice to outsiders, abuse of father. After he escaped, lies disparaging him and claiming he doesn't love you.

I know the public perception of women as basically virtuous and nurturing, with misbehavior attributed to victimisation by men or oppression by patriarchal structures. I have a feminist background, I know how pervasive those ideas are and how cosily attractive they are to feminists. I understand how that hurts the victims of women, and I actively fight those stereotypes in the few feminist spaces I still participate in. "If women are not free to be monsters, women are not free" is one way I put it.

The statistic about mothers being more often the killers of infant children is true but I don't think it is a smart one for MRAs to promote as evidence of women being bad, because when examined it confirms the familiar story that physical violence at a level which causes grievous injuries or death is overwhelmingly a feature of the male nature not female.

Women's sexual and severe physical abuse happens more than people think but the vast majority of the harm they do is psychological and social. The severity of that abuse needs far more recognition.

[–]sneakpeekbot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Abbysol 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryaniskira 66 points67 points68 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

For a Grand Total of:
Mother= 40.175%
Father= 17.575%

[–]Fofo336 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imguralbumbot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]red_philosopher 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Presjewdentjewbama 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You need to change all those links to https, that server no longer accepts http. The wayback machine could not find the one I asked for but the original is still there with https.

Your source is good but the data confirms my comment. For example the final table here shows fatalities by parent age and sex.
The table headings are messed up in my browser but they are Male, Female, Total.
Females do 2/3 of the killings when young (most killings occur in the first year), then it gradually changes so from fifty and up men do 3/4 of the killings. Women do come out on top by 2:1 in the early years but what is this actually proving other than that despite women doing overwhelmingly more of the childcare in two parent families, and that solo parents of infants are overwhelmingly women, men can't even handle the small amount of sole infant care they do without reaching for that most characteristically male of tools, fatal violence?

There have been surveys on men's contact time with young children but you don't need to look them up to know men's homicide rate is far higher considering how little extended time they spend alone with infants. It is routine for women to be with their kids for 9-10 hours every weekday while hubby is out at work, while most men are seldom alone with their baby for more than a few hours in the first year.

Age of parent is not the best way to see this effect, it is much clearer if you find a table for one country based on the age of the child not the perp. But your source will do:
https://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/ncands97/s7.htm

Anyway, none of those things are news.
None are "an epidemic", these patterns have been known for several decades.
None show women in the west are more prone to fatal violence at any stage of their baby's lives except the first day and possibly the first month. Men have so litttle unsupervised access in the early months there is no worthwhile data for that.

Finding a situation in which women have a higher propensity for fatal violence than men seems to be the yummy juice attracting everybody to this subject, but the data does not support it except for in countries where killing at birth is used because abortion is unavailable (and often contraception is unaffordable).
This includes where women have to use killing after birth to control the sex of their babies.

Sex selection exclusively involves killing female babies (and almost exclusively killing female foetuses) because the Feminist Overlords who rule the world are stupid and ordered the wrong sex to be killed by mistake. Indian men cower in fear of being legally raped by their wives but they know their male children will not get selected for death at birth until the feminists discover their mistake and switch the sex ordered for decimation. /s

There is evidence of women being terrible people (ALL WOMEN!!!! /s), but it will not be found by examining fatal violence because men win that hands down in any situation you can point to. OP misunderstood the meaning of the big cluster of red dots on the women's graph but not the mens' and got overexcited because he thought he'd found the holy grail. He didn't, but the glee with which people who don't usually show any interest in child protection have jumped into this is really distasteful. Kids are getting abused and killed, we need to understand the facts about that not use misrepresent them for the momentary pleasure of pretending women's violent tendencies are equal or sometimes greater.

If anybody is actually interested in protecting the kids here is a quick overview of what is known about maternal filicide.
I won't provide anything for paternal filicide because I don't want to make men (ALL MEN!!!! /s) feel bad at the most suicide-o-genic time of year.

Filicide by mothers - reasons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

[–]Ted8367 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Thr0w4w4y757746 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Over the last four or so years I might have spent a few hundred hours supporting children abused in childhood, mostly by narcissist parents. A definite majority of those are mothers for some reason, maybe male narcs don't have kids so often. The kids never get rescued and there is often severe permanent damage. They are often chronically suicidal and some don't survive.
So I'm well aware of the need to teach the public about how monstrous and destructive women can be, and how it isn't just very rare freaks of nature.

The example of women killing children doesn't work well for this though. When examined it backfires and confirms the common and true stereotype that fatal violence is much more a part of the male nature than female.

Attempting to prop up the story by pretending the circumstances of women killers are comparable with men is proposterous and supports the stereotype that MRAs are more motivated by criticising women than by the victims we claim to be concerned about. Women are typically with their infants almost 24x7, and are left alone with children 50 hours a week. They are subject to postnatal depression, hormonal anomalies, less sleep than partners(?), exhaustion from breastfeeding.
There is a gigantic imbalance in the % of each sex who don't have a partner to help; or whose partner is delinquent, disfunctional, immature or crippled by a drug or gaming addiction.

[–]Ted8367 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mothers and fathers have differences in the kind of help they need. Mothers needs are more acute in the early years, that is when most of the deaths by far occur, both absolutely and by mothers.

Most of what they need is standard social work stuff - a support network including friends, family, medical and mental health professionals. Freedom from severe stress e.g. eviction, power cut off, no food, violent partner, bad family, bad housemates.

Being called evil and unclean and thrown onto the street by a strict religious familiy doesn't usually help.

Both partners need information about childrearing and ongoing support. There is no downside to any of this. If society accidentally provides a little more relief from crushing stress than is needed to prevent a murder the excess is not wasted, it all goes into producing a healthier family. The social bang per buck is highest at the start of life. A thousand dollars gives far more benefit if spent on a preschooler than on a university student or a prisoner.

A supportive partner is a big factor in avoiding postnatal depression. Middle class, financially comfortable women get it but not nearly as often as poor women without a satisfactory partner.

Access to relief childcare can help a lot. A second car can help.

One suggestion, I think this is done in some countries, is to give a week of compulsory leave to fathers after birth so all men can be there for that critical time, not just those with enough power to negotiate it.
The US's parental leave laws are shocking, worse than third world countries from what I saw. Internationally the move is to make it nearly all ungendered so the couple can split it as they want, and the legal minimum provision is good enough that poor babies and rich babies can all get a decent amount of time with their parents of both sexes.

[–]ignigenaquintus 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I don’t see in your comment any statistics regarding the number of hours that fathers and mothers spend with their kids. I also don’t see any logic that sustain that these so called “hours of opportunity” translate in a DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL correlation with the number of murders. As we know there are mothers that kill their new born infants immediately as there are parents (an overwhelming majority) that don’t kill their kids ever, seems to me that the directly proportional correlation is not sustained by logic nor by statistics, although it is not discarded either.

But let’s assume that you are correct and that the so called “hours of opportunity” is the variable that explain the difference in children murders as a directly proportional correlated variable.

Women are stronger that kids, because this is true the hours spend with the kids translate in hours of opportunity for women to kill children. How is it that feminism don’t apply the same logic (hours of opportunity) in regards with murders of women at the hands of men? It is exactly the same logic because the 2% weakest men are still stronger than 98% of women (prensil strength). Unless you are suggesting that a strength difference plays no role in terms of opportunity of course, but that would be absurd. In fact you support this obvious conclusion in your own comment by stating that “Men have a higher total rate of killing older children regardless of contact hours. It is only for infants that women kill more children.”

It seems to me that when talking about domestic violence feminism explains the difference exclusively due to machismo and the so called “toxic masculinity”, demonizing men. In fact, in Spain the law establish that if a man hits a woman in the context of heterosexual domestic violence, either a couple or ex couple, the man did it exclusively due to machismo, therefore being considered a hate crime against women and carrying a much harsher sentence than if a woman were to hit her husband, even if she did it with an object. In USA and other countries this narrative may not have been explicitly formalized by law, but its the pervasive narrative within feminism. In fact, it’s not just that the difference in opportunities of committing a crime is not portrayed as an explanatory reason behind the difference in percentages of perpetrators between genders, it’s actually considered an aggravating factor, as we see when society tells boys they shouldn’t hit girls, but don’t tell girls to don’t hit boys.

Obviously, the logic you propose would paint a very different picture in which because almost every hour between heterosexual couples would count as a “hour of opportunity” for men to kill their significant other but not the other way around, the conclusion, based on your own logic, would be that women are significantly more aggressive and violent than men as there is a significant percentage of murders between couples or ex couples that have men as the victim, while women have much less opportunities.

We can discuss any of these issues either applying one logic or the other, but these logics are mutually exclusive, either the murders are primarily explained by hours of opportunity or they are primarily explained by some inherent evil in one gender. What we can’t do is engage in psychological compartmentalization and defend two mutually exclusive logics at the same time just because one serve as a rationalization to sustain a desired conclusion in one case and the other as a rationalization to sustain the desired conclusion in other case, and coincidentally, in both cases sustaining the narrative that feminism defends, that men are inherently evil and women inherently innocent.

You were accusing people here of defending a narrative that demonize women. Maybe you should consider, after all your comments about logic and facts, that the reason behind it is showing the hypocrisy in feminism portraying men as inherently evil through a very flimsy rationalization that, when applied to other areas of interpersonal family violence would lead to a conclusion that obviously no feminist would consider aceptable. You are on the right track by noticing the absurdity of condemning a whole gender based on an interpretation of statistics that begs for the conclusion of evil as the explanatory factor, and therefore a sexist condemnation of said hated gender. Now you just have to apply it consistently.

EDIT: words and additional text (conclusion)

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignigenaquintus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignigenaquintus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignigenaquintus 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AiroDewitt 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_annoying_one1 72 points73 points74 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]antilopes -57 points-56 points-55 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_annoying_one1 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EstusFiend 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You don't need any data beyond common knowledge to know most women get few substantial breaks from their infants, and that these are very precious. Some women would be lucky to get one hour off in a week. Others might be delighted to get a 3 hour break once a week so they can leave the house with their partner and no baby!!! Seriously, it feels like getting out of jail.

I worked 40 hours and we started a babysitting club which worked brilliantly for couples - no fees, you just swap babysitting time. It even works for single parents whose child will sleep in strange houses. But no good for deadbeat druggies who nobody would trust in their house.
We had to pay for sitters for a while. We were not broke but the cost added up pretty fast, some people just can't do it. If they don't have family or child-friendly friends people can get shut in.

[–]EstusFiend -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NinjaBurrito7 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AiroDewitt 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mynameischad01 51 points52 points53 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]NorskChef 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does matter if they are single. It matters more if they're single and have an unmarried partner living with them. Here's a good article (sorry I'm on mobile) https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/6210-new-study-child-abu-6210 "Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect." I know that it's not a study on homicide (I couldn't find one comparing single parenthood specifically with child homicide), but child abuse is definitely connected to child homicide considering most of the child homicides women commit are against children under 2, who happen to also have the highest mortality rate when experiencing abuse. The article also goes on to say that abuse rates in single parent households have gone up since 1996, when abuse rates have universally gone down since 1996. These stats should actually provide a compelling argument from an MRA standpoint because this article and the other articles I've read all suggest that when both biological parents are involved in raising a child, the probability of violence against the child is significantly lower. What's good for men's rights is what's good for everyone.

[–]Mynameischad01 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilentKiller96 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PracticalTiger 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ancapss 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thr0w4w4y757746 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FubukiAmagi 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noclipper 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Icynibba 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sailnmon9 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Robfu 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ipwr85 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ipwr85 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phrodo_00 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stunner900 -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]njullpointer 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kaffirdog 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alice2002 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodmod[M] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]adorluigi3 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodmod 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]adorluigi3 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PandDos 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]antilopes -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nadgobuyoo 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think everyone agrees it is desirable in principle for men to have the same choices as women where feasible. But this is complicated by biological realities.

What choice do you mean?

Same choice to abort?
You can't force a woman to abort her baby. Not in western or Abrahamic religion countries anyway. Fine in North Korea and under Pol Pot and Mao I suspect. And Hitler, for sure. He and eugenics are both coming back into vogue so it might not be a silly move to ally ourselves with the "We are not alt-right and there is in fact no such thing as the alt-right" guys.

Same ability to avoid financial support of an unwanted child?
OK, but you will need to elect a left wing govt for that because no Christian or right wing govt (could there ever be a difference given the huge US Christian vote?) will ever cancel child support payments and replace them from taxes. Even a subsistence level amount of child support is more money than a right wing govt would pay, and they have strong ideological opposition to the idea anyway. Offering support afterwards can not be separated from encouragement.
The US would be particularly hard to make this happen in, if it ended up in the SC Gorsuch and Kav would fight it to their last molecule. Below the SC the federal judiciary is now packed with right wing judges, so no luck there either.

How about an extreme right wing govt that would literally let homeless mothers and babies starve in the streets rather than submit them to the evil of food paid by taxes? OK, but they will be letting the much larger number of homeless, jobless men starve too. That will increase the size of the unemployable, ungovernable criminal underclass. Those people will vote left wing so this is not a sustainable strategy for the right.

I have never heard of a left wing govt go as far as supporting fathers opting out but they are much more supportive of single parents and lack the Christian instinct to punish people who divorce or don't marry.
Still, it would be to make it too easy for single women to plan to produce children without first securing a suitable father. And it takes the pressure off men to be responsible for their side of birth control. Both of these would be bad for society.

Same inability to have an abortion?
This is doable. It has been proven internationally to work for the poor classes such as my parents.
Severe jail terms for couples conspiring to end pregnancies at home or to travel for an abortion are required, but that can all be done. The spying infrastructure is already in place, it wouldn't cost much more to use it. Friends and family can be subpoenaed and examined under oath. The drug dealer who supplied their pregnancy test sticks would sing, if it was not him who reported them in the first place for the bounty.
Equality at last! But only for couples where the woman will not abort.

For the great majority of couples there is still equality with each other, but their ability to avoid an unwanted pregancy has been EQUALLY removed from both of them. They won't care about having their lives messed up though because EQUALITY is the only thing in the universe which ever mattered. /s

Since all these options are either impossible or highly undesirable I suggest keeping the current system. This has the advantage of being able to whine inconsolably about INEQUALITY safe in the knowledge nothing can or should be done to reduce that inequality.

[–]AiroDewitt 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You are presuming life starts after the age when abortions happen. Anti-abortionists say life starts at conception don't they?

You can argue either way but you can't argue both ways at once. If men want to make any progress toward being able to opt out of their obligation to support a child they never wanted and actively tried to avoid conceiving, or just to retain the ability to have a legal abortion if the partner agrees, as they usually do, then the crucial enemy is anti-abortionists not feminists. You can negotiate with feminists, you can not negotiate with anti-abortionists. The only thing you can do with them is keep them out of political power.

That is already difficult in the US now the Christians' man has put two anti-abortionists on the Supreme Court and will pick a third if he can. Their objective is to give states the right to ban abortion, and to gerrymander control of state legislatures.

[–]jmac323 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]normal21312131231 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]antilopes -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

The graphs are for equal numbers of M and F homicides which enables analysis within each sex well, but is wildly disproportionate when comparing sexes.
Worldwide men do 96% of all homicides.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

In the west men do about 90% of all homicides. This 30 year study in Sweden found the ratio has been stable during that time.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nine-in-ten-murders-are-committed-by-men-research-finds-a7095861.html

Everybody with an interest in child protection knows women are the main killers of their children in absolute terms. This is not an epidemic and it is not changing, it is ancient news. Most children are killed while very young, so by women. In the first year women do 80% of the killings. Women do 2/3 of killings in the first five years. Men take over as the main killers once the children are older, at age eight in the US (Reference is in the Wikipedia page on Filicide).

Toparov cited stats showing men killed slightly more of their children than women. I didn't check it, the discrepancy might be because it covers the whole of their children's lifetime not just childhood, or it may be just that different countries were examined.

BREAKING NEWS: Women have vastly higher contact time with young children, and extended solo time (i.e the dangerous sort) with very young children is almost exclusively female.

If you adjust for contact time without considering whether it is solo or not, men are far more dangerous to children per hour, even to young children. The numbers are available or you can estimate the lowest plausible number for the contact hours ratio, any sane number will show that men are either more dangerous or far more dangerous per hour.

If we adjust for extended time alone with children, men would be enormously more dangerous per extended solo contact hour. I have not seen numbers for this but women obviously have far extended solo time with infants because the male partner is usually away 50+ hours for work.

[–]DracoMagnusRufus 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mynameischad01 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mynameischad01 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Krak_Nihilus 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]functionalghost 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Palzon- -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]divers69 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

I know this is going to make you guys mad but the evidence is actually of the exact opposite.

Men kill more children than women do by a pretty significant margin, it's just that men commit many more murders in general which make murders of children by women stand out statistically, that is simply because in the US mothers spend more time with children than fathers.

"male perpetrators somewhat outnumber female perpetrators (58 percent and 42 percent, respectively) in homicides of young children, females are involved in these homicides more often than in homicides of victims of any other age (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997)"

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187239.pdf

It takes a special kind of shitty person to note that men kill significantly more young children and then claim that "women need to learn to not kill children".

Just the facts.

[–]boringcarpets 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

The study defines it's terms, "young children" refers to 0-5, middle is 6-11 etc.

[–]DeathMind 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

OP is just raw about children, it does not specify a familial requirement so I am not sure why that data would be relevant. Seems to me only child homicide by gender is relevant to the OP.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question though.

[–]DeathMind 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Toparov1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't agree that is what the thread is about, OP never mentions family in his original post he merely compares male to female. That conversation may be happening in other parts of the thread but I was replying to the claim in the OP as in male vs female, family relationship irrelevant.

[–]DeathMind 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the red dots clustered towards the bottom represent children from within the family being killed by women. Compare it with the men's one.

As the original thread title states it is specifically looking at in-family homicide rates by gender. Now I'll admit that I interperted this as mothers as it could also refer to grandmothers, sisters, nieces and other family related female members, although I would argue that given the age of the deaths one could argue that it would be predominantly mothers that is referred to by the OP.

male perpetrators somewhat outnumber female perpetrators (58 percent and 42 percent, respectively) in homicides of young children

This does not refer specifically to the family status in murder rates that the OP is referring to thus while im not claiming these statistics are wrong I'm pointing out that they do not reflect what the OP was referring to and the ones boringcarpets posted do.

[–]TheHarryWompa -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Mellex_ 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheHarryWompa 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mynameischad01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheHarryWompa 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClockworkOnion -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lixxenn -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ballsdeepinreality 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Beltox2pointO -25 points-24 points-23 points 7 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[+]OwnHeavyWeapons1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (38 children) | Copy Link

So spending more time with your kids is an actual reason to kill them?

[–]DWShimoda 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Worse they seem to actually be saying it's not only a reason but a justification for it.

No they don't

IOW it's really the dead KID'S fault.

That's not what they are saying

Apparently then -- if the same (warped) logic of "time around the kids" applies -- once kids pass ~age 5 school teachers (particularly elementary school teachers where a single teacher typically has the same students all day long) should be killing kids at about an equal or higher rate than mothers.

False analogy

Yes it is a strawman. What they are trying to do is understand where the disparity comes from!

The amount of single mothers far exceeds single fathers and if these homicides were done primarily by single parents it would explain the gender gap here. I don't know if when adjusted there would still be a gap but asserting thus without evidence is just wrong

Understanding the reasons behind it can help solve the problem. Let's say depression makes a mother 4 times as likely to kill their young children we could give them mandatory psychological evaluations after birth to prevent killings. Thus is NOT the same as JUSTIFYING killing children.

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lixxenn -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]lixxenn -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]lixxenn 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ok. What does have to do with what is at hand, is accurate data that takes circumstance into situation. This sub normally fights for valid injustices against men and discrimination. By posting skewed statistics like the one above, we look like feminazis, spewing arguments that really dont make sense in the name of making the other gender look bad. Idk how to properly link on here but the article below shows just how skewed this is. Yes, women may kill more babies, but the number of people in almost all situations murdered by men is exponentially higher. Hmm, maybe theres a situational explanation for the new discrepancy?

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2017.0016

The number of women that die in childbirth has got to be so much lower than women who are left alone with a child, regardless of the reason. We dont have autonomy over our bodies all the time to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy. That information absolutely matters in determining why the graph might be skewed the way it is.

[–]DWShimoda 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

that takes circumstance into situation.

What "circumstance" justifies murder of infants and toddlers?

Go on... DIG your own hole...

Yes, women may kill more babies, but the number of people in almost all situations murdered by men is exponentially higher.

Nope. Add in abortion and it's irrefutable: women are -- way over the top -- the most LIKELY to murder their own kind (and their own "kin").

It's much like sexual abuse. Women actually sexually abuse FAR MORE CHILDREN than men -- definitely more (orders of magnitude more) than any "stranger" male -- both mothers AND older sibling daughters are in fact THE MOST LIKELY to sexually (and otherwise) "abuse" -- for their OWN gratification -- various young children (their own children and/or younger siblings, half-siblings, etc.)

People just make excuses for it -- "oh it was just cleaning" (really? sucking on an infants penis/testicles was the only way you could "clean" them? finger-penetrating their anus was necessary WHY? Dressing your young son/little brother up in "girls clothes" had WHAT purpose again? Playing? Was it truly "consented" to by the child? With a full understanding of how it would WARP his self-image?)

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your comparison should be to male parents and family members, there is no justification for bringing strangers into the comparison.

LOL... logic FAIL.

The numbers are strongly against you in every survey I have seen.

Oooooh.... every survey you have seen -- gee quelle surprise you don't say!

Better close your eyes when reading this: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

That way you can still claim to NOT have "seen" the survey (or of course, since it is an article ABOUT survey results... well you can use that little technicality).

You could do a rough check by inspecting any of our support subs for sexual abuse, PTSD, CPTSD, depression, BPD, suicide.

Wherever you look you will find sexual abuse by mothers is far more rare than by fathers.

Yeah... except NOT. The problem is the name "sexual abuse" -- a whole host of research HAS in fact been done -- and when the "sexual abuse" label is discarded and the simple physical acts are used (i.e. finger wiggling in vagina/anus etc), then it tips the other way... MASSIVELY.

Women -- mothers, sisters, baby sitters, other female caretakers -- sexual abuse children at a rate that is hard to fathom.

It gets ENTIRELY excused/dismissed/justified (often by the victims themselves as well as everyone else) as merely "cleaning" and other "care" or nurturing.

[–]antilopes0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_MisterJake 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr_MisterJake -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What? I'm just saying you can't use the arguments for wage gap like you can with time spent with child means higher murder rates. All this data says is that of all the women who commit murder a larger portion of them than men have family victims under 10 years old. If your argument is that women spend more time with their children on average and that is linked to higher murder rates that is just wrong.

I thought they gender pay gap is directly linked to time spent working, no? Women tend to take less demanding jobs and longer breaks in employment than men and that is where you see the earnings difference.

Time spent with children is not directly linked to murder rates. On average mothers spend more time with their children than men but both the mother and father are equally likely to commit infanticide. Women are just less likely to commit other types of murder which is why you see that grouping for infanticide in the OP's scatter plot graph.

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If your argument is that women spend more time with their children on average and that is linked to higher murder rates that is just wrong

It's not. My argument is that the reasons for it are not clear from the data given in this thread and many factors could possibly explain this difference but we are not researchers and thus should not make claims about shit we don't know enough about. Just like the wage gap has factors that would explain differences and thus ascribing it to sexism without analysing the reasons behind the difference is dangerous and wrong.

I thought they gender pay gap is directly linked to time spent working, no?

Hours worked, full-time vs part-time, dangerous job pay, sick days, pay negotiation, field specialisation, education level, etc.

It's a ton of factors

Time spent with children is not directly linked to murder rates

I'm not saying it was, I was giving as an example factor that could be influencing the infanticide disparity.

both the mother and father are equally likely to commit infanticide.

That's not what op is arguing. "An epidemic of mothers killing their children"

[–]DWShimoda 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately you don't understand it buddy.

I absolutely DO understand it. I understand exactly what you are up to.

See this isn't showing some "children have more minor accidents when they are around only their mothers than when only their fathers are near." THAT would be the kind of data -- and the type of thing that should be looked at on a "per hour" basis rather than simply an aggregate.

MURDER is not something of that type.

Unadjusted data means nothing.

And "cooked" data? All kinds of fraud (and indeed crime, in this case MURDER) get hidden ALL the time in MISLEADING "adjustments" to data.

The rest of your comment:

On average the more churches in a city the more crime. This is not due to churches causing crime but because bigger cities have more crime and churches. In the same way if every 1% of parents both male and female are crazy and can potentially kill their kid under equal conditions they would murder kids at equal rate. However just like the wage gap we should look at percentages of parents spending time with their kids. If man only 25% time with their kid opposed to womens 75% we would expect the crazy women to murder their kid around 3 times as much as man.

The reasons against the message of these graphs is the same arguments we make against the wage gap. Let's not make the same mistake!

Actually reveals that it is you who do not comprehend the data here... you in fact are making nothing more than specious and misleading (horribly offbase) analogies.

I'd posit that as just plain old ignorance... but something tells me it's not; it's a far worse kind of bias.

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

MURDER is not something of that type

Citation? Unless ur a psych major just asserting this is bad. Who knows maybe crimes of opportunity in stressed parents is an actual thing. Without studying the reasons behind it, it is just some stupid number people will use to boost their own narrative

And "cooked" data? All kinds of fraud (and indeed crime, in this case MURDER) get hidden ALL the time in MISLEADING "adjustments" to data.

Unless you are educated in the field you do not have the expertise to distinguish between fair adjusted data and cooked data

Actually reveals that it is you who do not comprehend the data here... you in fact are making nothing more than specious and misleading (horribly offbase) analogies.

I'd posit that as just plain old ignorance... but something tells me it's not; it's a far worse kind of bias.

Maybe the analogy isn't great but the point is that just numbers mean very little and without studying the reasons behind it to understand why this difference is there we are just projecting our own narrative on it. That is what I'm saying which is the opposite of bias!

Maybe this is better. If it turns out children get murder 99% of the time by single parents in the case of family relations and 80% of single parents are mothers we would expect 5 times as much mother killings as father killings.

So again to reiterate: I don't know the reasons for this disparity and I would like to see research on it but I think just asserting things is biased and harmful to solving the problem of infantile homicide

[–]DWShimoda -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Citation? Unless ur a psych major just asserting this is bad.

ROTFLMAO.

Ah the idiocy of the modern fully-programmed NPC.

Unless you are educated in the field you do not have the expertise to distinguish between fair adjusted data and cooked data

ROTFLMAO. Bullshit.

we are just projecting our own narrative on it.

No, that's what you are doing. Others here haven't been trying to construct (or project) any "narrative" around this... only you have been doing that. You are insistent on creating a JUSTIFICATION-rationale for WHY they do this in order to try to maintain your own belief that "women are wonderful, they're the MOST nurturing, caring, loving" etc etc etc.

All OP and the rest of us are doing is saying that the DATA, the EVIDENCE, entirely refute that notion. Women are not some "special" class of people who DO NO HARM, they not only LIE, CHEAT, they also KILL... even their own children.

So again to reiterate: I don't know the reasons for this disparity and I would like to see research on it but I think just asserting things is biased and harmful to solving the problem of infantile homicide

And now you're LYING again. You're really NOT interested in "reasons", you're seeking justifications in order to maintain your "pollyanna" view of women.

[–]DeathMind 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

ROTFLMAO. Ah the idiocy of the modern fully-programmed NPC.

No argument just your feelings

ROTFLMAO. Bullshit.

No argument just your feelings

You are insistent on creating a JUSTIFICATION-rationale for WHY they do this

I'm not but if we understand the factors that lead to these scenarios we can combat the problem or is your solution that woman should never be allowed near children?

in order to try to maintain your own belief that "women are wonderful, they're the MOST nurturing, caring, loving" etc etc etc.

I don't think this so that's a strawman buddy

All OP and the rest of us are doing is saying that the DATA, the EVIDENCE, entirely refute that notion.

Op calls it a epidemic I don't think it is. Picture has little to no statically value without numbers and percentages. I'm trying to make people understand not to make ill formed arguments based on just plain numbers

Women are not some "special" class of people who DO NO HARM, they not only LIE, CHEAT, they also KILL... even their own children.

They are human like everyone else? If you think I don't agree with me you are projecting and fighting a strawman

And now you're LYING again. You're really NOT interested in "reasons", you're seeking justifications in order to maintain your "pollyanna" view of women.

What's Pollyanna? I'm trying to stay based in facts and find solutions. This has nothing to do with my justification as I'm trying to understand where the disparity between men and woman comes from which the data here doesn't show. It might be due to gender but again stating this without research is dumb.

Start using arguments that address what I said instead of using ur feelings and attacking a strawman and calling me a liar

[–]DWShimoda0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]diezeitanhalten1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Men on average work more than women because of the culture we live in. Cherry picking your data in households where men and women do not work the same number of hours, makes YOU look bad.

Men often work more than women when it comes to overtime and regularly scheduled work. Have some sauce with that.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-yearly-reminder-that-the-gender-wage-gap-is-due-to-choice-not-discrimination

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

[–]DeathMind 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beltox2pointO -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Valmar33 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Valmar33 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]functionalghost 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The crossover point is eight years old, where women are still much stronger than boys.

Since men are nowhere near as susceptible to postnatal depression, and crying babies are not a reason for violence, what sob stories do you offer on behalf of the men who are so spectacularly more prone to lash out and kill their own children than women, considering men's relatively very low exposure to prolonged solo time with their young children?

Remember women only kill infants at 2:1 ratio, while women's prolonged solo exposure to their pre-school kids is at an enormously higher ratio than that.

Are men delicate little dears who can't handle even a little frustration, or are we raging brutes, or overgrown children, or do you have some other sob story? Are men just dogs, or trash? I'm interested to hear your "excuses".

A 1999 United States Department of Justice study concluded that between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children aged eight or older.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide
https://web.archive.org/web/20100603113816/http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

[–]Funcuz -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, this doesn't really encapsulate all the dynamics of the situation either.

Often enough, women don't get recorded as being murderers because they get other men to do the dirty work. Usually it's because they just can't do it for physical reasons of because they don't want to risk being linked to the murder (to be fair, who does?) Unlike men, they can actually get people to do what they want (well, they can get men to do it) with just a few tears here and there if not the promise of pussy. So they come up with the plan, assist and fund it as necessary, and then a simple transaction of sex seals the deal. When the dunce who actually committed the murder gets caught, the women don't get charged with murder. Conspiracy, maybe, but not the act itself. So we don't really get a view of the real scope of female-driven homicide.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BittyMitty -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BittyMitty 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]fyrie1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Im old school MRM and this sub was cool one but now it's an alt right cesspool.

[–]bluman855 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boringcarpets 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IrideTheDirt -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. Women really do need to learn to not kill children. Look at these two graphs - the red dots clustered towards the bottom represent children from within the family being killed by women. Compare it with the men's one. Why aren't we hearing about this epidemic?

Comments

No, it isn't.

ROTFLMAO.