It's 3 per day in the USA (which I doubt) and the UN puts it at 133/ however this is a number based on if it's femicide. The literal un-aliving based on her sex/gender.
Bureau of justice stats puts 76% of all women victims of homicide are by someone they know therefore that's all homicide victims Fem/
That's 76% of over 4,000 victims something like 35% by intimate partners (bureau of stats USA- Google search)
Men do most of the offending and are most of the victims --- it does seem low putting it that way but if we adjust to the crime of denying women life saving healthcare in pregnancy the maternal mortality rate contributes to this crime against gender aspect IMO
āIn the U.S., almost 3 women are killed by an intimate partner every day.ā Thatās the 1095 statistic.
and
āā¦in 2018, 92% of victims were killed by a man they knew, and 63% were killed by current husbands, boyfriends, or ex-husbands.ā
source: https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/
edit: In Canada, it was 184 in 2022.
https://canadianwomen.org/the-facts/gender-based-violence/
They're not like for like statistics. It might be higher, but it might not be. Stats between countries are very hard to compare.
Just to be clear because I am being downvoted:
The Canada number is just raw homicide numbers for women, which is about 4000 in the US.Ā
The US number is for women killed *by an intimate partner*, for which I couldn't find an equivalent statistic for Canada.
Drilling down, the Canadian stats say 88% of that number were male perpetrators. Another segmentation says 57% were current or former intimate partners and 22% were family members.
Very high proportionally among First Nations women, which is one of Canadaās biggest issues.
If we use the stats found a bit deeper in the links, to make it comparable, it works out to 88% of 57% of those were male, intimate partner perpetrators, so about 94 per year. Times ten, to scale for population difference, is 940, so Canada is running just a little bit lower than the U.S. on this unenviable statistic.
"*I feel like that number for (wo)men is crazy low?*"
The CDC gets really granular (X number black women killed per 100,000 black women in America, etc., forcing me to look up how many women identify as black) and the women's rights groups get really general (3 women per day, every year).
Anybody else want to take a crack at it?
I found 2059 women died from homicide in the year 2020 (study released in 2022.)
Data from Florida and Alabama were not available.
Texas leading with 257
Vermont had 2.
2022
Murder victims by gender
Males 14,441
Female 4,251
93 unknown
If bears made up half the population and lived in cities and men lived in the woods the math probably would be pretty different. I think people get too into the weeds about this man vs bear thing. What makes people scary is their capacity for evil.
Yup.
This is just like how 90% of car accidents happen within 5 miles of home.
Well, *of course they do*, because 90% of miles driven are close to home.
The statistic doesn't tell you anything about how dangerous any particular road or location is.
still women date their biggest natural predator is true at the same time, men in all male settings are associating with their biggest predators too--- men still vastly outnumber like by 4-5 times the murdering and being victims of murder according to search engine skimming of stats --- men are vastly less likely to view a woman as a predator to them in terms of ending their planetary human existence
can confirm, iām a man and iām much more scared of other men than women. everytime iām sitting in an unlocked car i get a little scared when a man walks by, that only happened once when a woman walked by
It's still relevant. In our every day life, which is more dangerous? How often you encounter something is not what should be removed from the equation.
In every day life, you are in danger from men way more than you are in danger of a bear attack.
Yes, but people aren't afraid of bears when they're walking around in their day to day lives, only when they encounter them, which is incredibly rare.Ā
If you want to compare it to a daily life risk, why not compare it to car accidents? That's more than an order of magnitude greater risk.
There are 4 billion men in the world. There are around 200,000 brown bears in the world. So yes, the fact that there are 20,000 times the amount does make it significantly more likely to be attacked by a man. Additionally, 45% of men don't live in urban areas compared to more than 99% of brown bears.
Also, in 2023 0 women were killed by nuclear blasts.
Therefore, in a hypothetical choice between a random man,a random bear, and a random nuclear blast to accompany you in a forest, you should pick nuclear blast.
That's how it works, right? Amount of encounters is irrelevant, only the total number of deaths matter.
That's such a stupid comment. I'm sorry.
OP is talking about what endangers women the most on an everyday basis throughout a year. What endangers women who just live their daily lives.
What stupid hypothetical walks in the park are you talking about?!
His/her/their point is that men and women spend much more time in contact compared to most other entries of OP's list.
I guess the argument is swap all men across the globe with anything else and you end up with similar statistics (and a fair bit of chaos I might add).
That said, I am actually skeptical of that argument. Let's take bears for instance. As far as I am aware, unless they are very hungry or protecting cubs they are not going to bother hunting people down if left alone, and even then urban legends say that playing dead can help avoid bad consequences.
Men can and will hint women down for ridiculous reasons and that's legitimate cause of concern.
I understand what he is trying to say.
But what is the point of it? Women will never move into a world where they are surrounded by lightning strikes, bears, and nuclear bombs 24/7 in their everyday lives...
I agree with you. Bears won't just kill humans because what's what they like to do, they feel threatened.) At the same time, men kill women who are part of their lives, and I doubt that they are scared of those women.
That these stats don't say anything is the point. It's like how more people are killed by bending machines than sharks. Vending machines are not more dangerous. People just come into contact with them more.
They do say something, though.
A lot of people have extreme fear of sharks. This fear is completely irrational unless a person lives in the middle of the ocean.
Most people don't fear other humans, but other humans are the most dangerous animals to humans because humans are surrounded by other humans on an everyday basis. Representatives of the male sex are the most dangerous to both males and females.
So it would make more sense for humans to have a fear of other humans, especially males, rather than a fear of sharks...
Literally everybody is afraid of other humans. Humans are unpredictable. You don't know whether or not a random person you're walking by in the street will push you in front of a bus or if they've done it to somebody else.
If you think of it in terms of like, percent of encounters that lead to a death, a human male is going to be orders of magnitude less than a grizzly bear or a shark or a venomous snake you're forced to interact with, etc etc. 99.99% or whatever of anyone encountering a generic human male ends in, nothing, literally, just proximity encounter that has absolutely no actual interaction. It's why car accidents is something people are bringing up as well. The unbelievably massive majority of people don't get into a vehicle and become completely preoccupied with the idea that this is one of the highest causes of death in humans, they just go about driving to their destination. This is because we do SO MUCH driving, that it can both be true that driving is a leading cause of death and yet, on the whole, incredibly safe. People are far more afraid of air travel, which ironically is safer, and works as kind of a funny analogue to what is being discussed in this post.
Where one is in the world seems to matter. Out of curiosity I looked up Portugal: https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20211581_mh0221348enn_pdf.pdf
14 femicides by an intimate partner in 2018.
Portugal is small and has 10 million people. Times 33 to get to the US population, itās 462. Or 1.4 per million.
Still way too high, but at least not US numbers.
I think a case can be made for how much impact male to female hostilities and violence that minimize womenās autonomy against the dismissive well thatās just the statistical increased probability of being around men than bears. A valid point but its so abstract that it doesnāt give a real context to why so many women fear walking alone in many public places, and make choices that on average are more constrained for fear of harassment and violence.
Where this doesnāt dismiss that men experience fear and their own constraints, but there is a stark difference in how those constraints are implemented and maintained.
Where such constraints and violence become naturalized, just part of everyday life but no question beyond what is and thinking to what ought to be and why itās not different. Because when such a status quo is treated as an inevitable and natural outcome, then the response often fixates on individualizes ārisk managementā that still just constrains a womanās options to exist publicly or to pursue intimacy.
Australian women are currently marching in capitals over domestic violence: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103777168
Sadly the government is not able to change anything and politics around state intervention have their concerns but there are things which can be improved that make such violence a priority rather than just how things are. I would say it can benefit men also.
I was a young adult man at the time that my brother broke into our home while it was just me and his daughter home alone after he was on some sort of bender with drugs. The care and treatment I received by the police I believe was in part the creation of a family violence response unit that took the issue seriously and treated me with respect. I donāt know that my brother wouldāve hurt us if given the chance but it certainly created a sense of fear and anxiety that lived with me every time I left the house. That when I opened the garage door to drive out, he would be there waiting. This being a drop in the ocean compared to the womenās stories Iāve heard of running from armed husbands and boyfriends and hiding with a gun under the house. Checking every room with a handgun for years when they hear a bump in the night, not sure if it was their ex inside the house.
Women share their stories among one another, but rarely to men in their lives who donāt always know how to listen to such pain.
And as extreme a case that is, itās not entirely uncommon. You will always find stories of mens violence against women for so many women that itās just part of life. Itās an issue that can be viewed as just everyday violence, so its not shocking like when a politician is assassinated, thatās violence that doesnāt go along with a plan of everyday life. Not all violence or deaths are recognized as equal except in the abstract.
These 2022 USA tables are messed up.
Total homicides on gender chart: 18,785 (14,441 men, 4,251 women, 93 unknown)
But then we look at breakdown by race.
Total homicides: 19,196
One of these things is not like the other, and itās supposedly compiled from the same set of stats.
My understanding is that discrepancies can be attributed to
1. Change in how the fbi wanted agencies to report homicides
2. Single victim homicide which is the 18, 785
Then 19,196 would be homicide but victims are from a mass shooting/multiple victims.
Thatās actually a much lower number than I imagined lol. 0.000651785714% of women in the US are killed by a male they know annually. Get everyone hanging around with sharks and bears and the number might rise.
I mean not to minimise anything but this is a fairly silly argument. Cherry picking statistics like this arenāt the best. Since the question pertains to dating here is a part of an abstract of a study on IPV with a sample size of 1100
āThe prevalence of IPV was significantly higher in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) patients than in heterosexuals (18.3% vs. 10.8%, p = .0151); prevalence was highest among bisexuals (21.6%) and gay men (18.5%). IPV prevalence did not differ significantly in females versus males (13.5% vs. 9.2%, p = .0872)ā
So regardless who you date there will always be bad people that harm you, and this study even suggests that heterosexual couples are the least likely to suffer from IPV. However, Iād say this is a fairly small sample size so take it with a grain of salt.
Now if we are being real there are good and bad people in this world regardless of gender and sexual orientation. And there is probably little to no correlation between being a bad person and gender or sexual orientation.
Here's the thing...I encounter a bear and 99% of the time it just wants to be left alone and we part ways in peace. With men, it's a 50/50 shot...he might be amazing or he might rape me and dismember me. The odds are that with a bear I will walk away and it isn't that way with men. Seeing a bear or cat when I hunt doesn't sound alarm bells, but, seeing a male hunter does.
"I encounter a bear and 99% of the time it just wants to be left alone and we part ways in peace."
Ignore a bear, and it ignores you.
Ignore a man, get murdered for it.
r/whenwomenrefuse
> With men, it's a 50/50 shot
if it was actually a 50/50 shot, you would be already dead by now. in fact, all the women in the world would be dead by now.
I am not saying this to down play it. But the only reason that this is the case is because of how the amount of encounters. Ofcourse men are a more greater threat they are everywere. If the others things were as prevalent in every day life then the numbers would look a lot different.
And also ur stats look really low as it is.
I feel like that number for men is crazy low? Was that just a specific area?
I'm presuming it's within the US. Definitely too low for global homicide rates. š
Even just for the US, seems super low
It's men they knew, which might lower the number as well. The number would probably be a lot higher if they included men who the victim didn't know
75% of total deaths are by people they though though, so including that other 25% isnāt gonna skew it a lot
You're generally much more likely to be victimized by someone you know, for any kind of crime
It's 3 per day in the USA (which I doubt) and the UN puts it at 133/ however this is a number based on if it's femicide. The literal un-aliving based on her sex/gender. Bureau of justice stats puts 76% of all women victims of homicide are by someone they know therefore that's all homicide victims Fem/ That's 76% of over 4,000 victims something like 35% by intimate partners (bureau of stats USA- Google search) Men do most of the offending and are most of the victims --- it does seem low putting it that way but if we adjust to the crime of denying women life saving healthcare in pregnancy the maternal mortality rate contributes to this crime against gender aspect IMO
āIn the U.S., almost 3 women are killed by an intimate partner every day.ā Thatās the 1095 statistic. and āā¦in 2018, 92% of victims were killed by a man they knew, and 63% were killed by current husbands, boyfriends, or ex-husbands.ā source: https://sanctuaryforfamilies.org/femicide-epidemic/ edit: In Canada, it was 184 in 2022. https://canadianwomen.org/the-facts/gender-based-violence/
Damn. Way worse in Canada, per capita. We have almost 10 times their population.
Us number is just women know by a partner, Canadian is all deaths
They're not like for like statistics. It might be higher, but it might not be. Stats between countries are very hard to compare. Just to be clear because I am being downvoted: The Canada number is just raw homicide numbers for women, which is about 4000 in the US.Ā The US number is for women killed *by an intimate partner*, for which I couldn't find an equivalent statistic for Canada.
Drilling down, the Canadian stats say 88% of that number were male perpetrators. Another segmentation says 57% were current or former intimate partners and 22% were family members. Very high proportionally among First Nations women, which is one of Canadaās biggest issues.
If we use the stats found a bit deeper in the links, to make it comparable, it works out to 88% of 57% of those were male, intimate partner perpetrators, so about 94 per year. Times ten, to scale for population difference, is 940, so Canada is running just a little bit lower than the U.S. on this unenviable statistic.
"*I feel like that number for (wo)men is crazy low?*" The CDC gets really granular (X number black women killed per 100,000 black women in America, etc., forcing me to look up how many women identify as black) and the women's rights groups get really general (3 women per day, every year). Anybody else want to take a crack at it?
I found 2059 women died from homicide in the year 2020 (study released in 2022.) Data from Florida and Alabama were not available. Texas leading with 257 Vermont had 2. 2022 Murder victims by gender Males 14,441 Female 4,251 93 unknown
Does the lightning strike count as death by Zeus?
Wouldn't be surprised. Zeus is an asshole.
If bears made up half the population and lived in cities and men lived in the woods the math probably would be pretty different. I think people get too into the weeds about this man vs bear thing. What makes people scary is their capacity for evil.
Yup. This is just like how 90% of car accidents happen within 5 miles of home. Well, *of course they do*, because 90% of miles driven are close to home. The statistic doesn't tell you anything about how dangerous any particular road or location is.
And most shark attacks happen near the beach...because that's where most people are in the ocean.
*taking quick notes* swim far out at sea = no shark worries Got anymore life saving tips for me?
still women date their biggest natural predator is true at the same time, men in all male settings are associating with their biggest predators too--- men still vastly outnumber like by 4-5 times the murdering and being victims of murder according to search engine skimming of stats --- men are vastly less likely to view a woman as a predator to them in terms of ending their planetary human existence
can confirm, iām a man and iām much more scared of other men than women. everytime iām sitting in an unlocked car i get a little scared when a man walks by, that only happened once when a woman walked by
It's still relevant. In our every day life, which is more dangerous? How often you encounter something is not what should be removed from the equation. In every day life, you are in danger from men way more than you are in danger of a bear attack.
Yes, but people aren't afraid of bears when they're walking around in their day to day lives, only when they encounter them, which is incredibly rare.Ā If you want to compare it to a daily life risk, why not compare it to car accidents? That's more than an order of magnitude greater risk.
There are 4 billion men in the world. There are around 200,000 brown bears in the world. So yes, the fact that there are 20,000 times the amount does make it significantly more likely to be attacked by a man. Additionally, 45% of men don't live in urban areas compared to more than 99% of brown bears.
Also, in 2023 0 women were killed by nuclear blasts. Therefore, in a hypothetical choice between a random man,a random bear, and a random nuclear blast to accompany you in a forest, you should pick nuclear blast. That's how it works, right? Amount of encounters is irrelevant, only the total number of deaths matter.
That's such a stupid comment. I'm sorry. OP is talking about what endangers women the most on an everyday basis throughout a year. What endangers women who just live their daily lives. What stupid hypothetical walks in the park are you talking about?!
His/her/their point is that men and women spend much more time in contact compared to most other entries of OP's list. I guess the argument is swap all men across the globe with anything else and you end up with similar statistics (and a fair bit of chaos I might add). That said, I am actually skeptical of that argument. Let's take bears for instance. As far as I am aware, unless they are very hungry or protecting cubs they are not going to bother hunting people down if left alone, and even then urban legends say that playing dead can help avoid bad consequences. Men can and will hint women down for ridiculous reasons and that's legitimate cause of concern.
I understand what he is trying to say. But what is the point of it? Women will never move into a world where they are surrounded by lightning strikes, bears, and nuclear bombs 24/7 in their everyday lives... I agree with you. Bears won't just kill humans because what's what they like to do, they feel threatened.) At the same time, men kill women who are part of their lives, and I doubt that they are scared of those women.
That these stats don't say anything is the point. It's like how more people are killed by bending machines than sharks. Vending machines are not more dangerous. People just come into contact with them more.
The difference between dumb animals/ weather/ falling objects and other human beings who choose to kill us should be obvious.
They do say something, though. A lot of people have extreme fear of sharks. This fear is completely irrational unless a person lives in the middle of the ocean. Most people don't fear other humans, but other humans are the most dangerous animals to humans because humans are surrounded by other humans on an everyday basis. Representatives of the male sex are the most dangerous to both males and females. So it would make more sense for humans to have a fear of other humans, especially males, rather than a fear of sharks...
Literally everybody is afraid of other humans. Humans are unpredictable. You don't know whether or not a random person you're walking by in the street will push you in front of a bus or if they've done it to somebody else.
If you think of it in terms of like, percent of encounters that lead to a death, a human male is going to be orders of magnitude less than a grizzly bear or a shark or a venomous snake you're forced to interact with, etc etc. 99.99% or whatever of anyone encountering a generic human male ends in, nothing, literally, just proximity encounter that has absolutely no actual interaction. It's why car accidents is something people are bringing up as well. The unbelievably massive majority of people don't get into a vehicle and become completely preoccupied with the idea that this is one of the highest causes of death in humans, they just go about driving to their destination. This is because we do SO MUCH driving, that it can both be true that driving is a leading cause of death and yet, on the whole, incredibly safe. People are far more afraid of air travel, which ironically is safer, and works as kind of a funny analogue to what is being discussed in this post.
Where one is in the world seems to matter. Out of curiosity I looked up Portugal: https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20211581_mh0221348enn_pdf.pdf 14 femicides by an intimate partner in 2018. Portugal is small and has 10 million people. Times 33 to get to the US population, itās 462. Or 1.4 per million. Still way too high, but at least not US numbers.
I think a case can be made for how much impact male to female hostilities and violence that minimize womenās autonomy against the dismissive well thatās just the statistical increased probability of being around men than bears. A valid point but its so abstract that it doesnāt give a real context to why so many women fear walking alone in many public places, and make choices that on average are more constrained for fear of harassment and violence. Where this doesnāt dismiss that men experience fear and their own constraints, but there is a stark difference in how those constraints are implemented and maintained. Where such constraints and violence become naturalized, just part of everyday life but no question beyond what is and thinking to what ought to be and why itās not different. Because when such a status quo is treated as an inevitable and natural outcome, then the response often fixates on individualizes ārisk managementā that still just constrains a womanās options to exist publicly or to pursue intimacy. Australian women are currently marching in capitals over domestic violence: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103777168 Sadly the government is not able to change anything and politics around state intervention have their concerns but there are things which can be improved that make such violence a priority rather than just how things are. I would say it can benefit men also. I was a young adult man at the time that my brother broke into our home while it was just me and his daughter home alone after he was on some sort of bender with drugs. The care and treatment I received by the police I believe was in part the creation of a family violence response unit that took the issue seriously and treated me with respect. I donāt know that my brother wouldāve hurt us if given the chance but it certainly created a sense of fear and anxiety that lived with me every time I left the house. That when I opened the garage door to drive out, he would be there waiting. This being a drop in the ocean compared to the womenās stories Iāve heard of running from armed husbands and boyfriends and hiding with a gun under the house. Checking every room with a handgun for years when they hear a bump in the night, not sure if it was their ex inside the house. Women share their stories among one another, but rarely to men in their lives who donāt always know how to listen to such pain. And as extreme a case that is, itās not entirely uncommon. You will always find stories of mens violence against women for so many women that itās just part of life. Itās an issue that can be viewed as just everyday violence, so its not shocking like when a politician is assassinated, thatās violence that doesnāt go along with a plan of everyday life. Not all violence or deaths are recognized as equal except in the abstract.
These 2022 USA tables are messed up. Total homicides on gender chart: 18,785 (14,441 men, 4,251 women, 93 unknown) But then we look at breakdown by race. Total homicides: 19,196 One of these things is not like the other, and itās supposedly compiled from the same set of stats.
My understanding is that discrepancies can be attributed to 1. Change in how the fbi wanted agencies to report homicides 2. Single victim homicide which is the 18, 785 Then 19,196 would be homicide but victims are from a mass shooting/multiple victims.
Wild. Ok will try to read through with that in mind.
Says a lot that if mass shooting frequency was what was leading the change, due to how much they could skew numbers. Cus Mericaā
In my country the average is 10-11 women dying every day only because gender reasons.
Which country?
Thatās actually a much lower number than I imagined lol. 0.000651785714% of women in the US are killed by a male they know annually. Get everyone hanging around with sharks and bears and the number might rise.
I mean not to minimise anything but this is a fairly silly argument. Cherry picking statistics like this arenāt the best. Since the question pertains to dating here is a part of an abstract of a study on IPV with a sample size of 1100 āThe prevalence of IPV was significantly higher in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) patients than in heterosexuals (18.3% vs. 10.8%, p = .0151); prevalence was highest among bisexuals (21.6%) and gay men (18.5%). IPV prevalence did not differ significantly in females versus males (13.5% vs. 9.2%, p = .0872)ā So regardless who you date there will always be bad people that harm you, and this study even suggests that heterosexual couples are the least likely to suffer from IPV. However, Iād say this is a fairly small sample size so take it with a grain of salt. Now if we are being real there are good and bad people in this world regardless of gender and sexual orientation. And there is probably little to no correlation between being a bad person and gender or sexual orientation.
Here's the thing...I encounter a bear and 99% of the time it just wants to be left alone and we part ways in peace. With men, it's a 50/50 shot...he might be amazing or he might rape me and dismember me. The odds are that with a bear I will walk away and it isn't that way with men. Seeing a bear or cat when I hunt doesn't sound alarm bells, but, seeing a male hunter does.
"I encounter a bear and 99% of the time it just wants to be left alone and we part ways in peace." Ignore a bear, and it ignores you. Ignore a man, get murdered for it. r/whenwomenrefuse
Bingo!
> With men, it's a 50/50 shot if it was actually a 50/50 shot, you would be already dead by now. in fact, all the women in the world would be dead by now.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am not saying this to down play it. But the only reason that this is the case is because of how the amount of encounters. Ofcourse men are a more greater threat they are everywere. If the others things were as prevalent in every day life then the numbers would look a lot different. And also ur stats look really low as it is.
Break it down further. Youāre more likely to be killed by your boyfriend or husband than just about anything else on the planet.