World Health Organization - "1/3 Of All Women In World Abused"
36 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41124826]I'm reading the shit out it and it distinctly says that "attacks by men cause more fear and injury" which seems to support my thesis of "violence against women is a fairly big fucking deal."
Hey, I'm just trying to point out this weird trend I noticed where whenever any real, hard evidence for the existence of widespread, pernicious sexism across the globe, (even if it's something as hard as a study of the rates of violence against women) lots of fucking guys just stream in and argue lots of either hard arguments against it, trying to casually refute the works of teams of scientists or statisticians, or lots of tiny little assuages of the severity of the information with statements like:
[/QUOTE]
And I'm not denying that if you care to read posts. I do directly say, that male abuse causes more harm, in part because men are overall bigger and stronger than women.
That doesn't invalidate the fact that abuse is widespread from both men and women, merely that the styles and impact is different.
And if you ask me, when we are talking about abuse and abuse in general, it's best to talk about it relatively in depth.
That said, people are going to be curious what the metric used is, what constitutes abuse under the study and if the styles and severity of the abuse is same across regions or if there are regional differences as well. You can't blame people for that.
Jumping to the attack because someone expressed this curiosity doesn't help at all, it probably does more harm than good.
[quote]
But how in the world would this possibly make the results of the study less legitimate? If someone posted a study on the prevalence of violence against store-keepers would you do what you're doing right now and comb through it looking for the tiniest little flaw in their methodology?[/QUOTE]
[/quote]
That's not an attack at the legitimacy of the study at all. But you yourself would have to agree that there is difference physical abuse that leaves little to no traces of it having happened to physical abuse to has visible hematoma, requires hospitalisation and similar.
If the majority of said abuse is in the first group it would possibly be a mistake to call out rampant and widespread sexism and abuse and compare it to similar rates on how other groups are abused, and isntead try to focus on more general abuse prevention. If the second type is more widespread we can safely say that much much more prevention ought to be directed purely to aid women.
It's a complex statistic and should be handled as such in my opinion.
Like if there were some fluff thread posted about how "studies show, every fourth of July Americans eat 100000000000000 hot dogs" would you get all up in there all like "hey uhhh this hot dog study doesn't differentiate between hot dogs and other tubular meats like bratwursts and sausages so we probably can't trust it's conclusions"?
No, nobody would do that. So why do you think that studies about the plight of women are singled out by this forum for particular scrutiny?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41124889]Like if there were some fluff thread posted about how "studies show, every fourth of July Americans eat 100000000000000 hot dogs" would you get all up in there all like "hey uhhh this hot dog study doesn't differentiate between hot dogs and other tubular meats like bratwursts and sausages so we probably can't trust it's conclusions"?
No, nobody would do that. So why do you think that studies about the plight of women are singled out by this forum for particular scrutiny?[/QUOTE]
Young male idiots who feel threatened by it.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41124826]I'm reading the shit out it and it distinctly says that "attacks by men cause more fear and injury" which seems to support my thesis of "violence against women is a fairly big fucking deal."[/quote]
And few people here are disputing that violence against women is a not a big thing. The chip you have on your shoulder seems to affecting your ability to read.
[quote]Seriously, every single thread about violence against women or discrimination against women or prejudice against women is very very quickly filled with a million different dudes going "I don't trust this study because X"[/quote]
In this particular case, I trust the study, but have a dispute with the methodology and the implications of that. But it's perfectly acceptable to be critical of EVERY study that is done, and the more valid a criticism you bring in regards to the study the more valid you are in being critical of it. If you read one of your own posts for example, you completely disregard a study just because it has been conducted by those who have a personal stake in the results, but then you criticize others for doing the same.
[quote]or "this really isn't that bad because Y" where X and Y are very obviously criticisms they just made up or anecdotes instead of actual meaningful critiques of information.[/quote]
Any form of violence isn't really acceptable, but do you really think severe beatings are on the same level as slaps and shoves?
[quote]But how in the world would this possibly make the results of the study less legitimate?[/quote]
It doesn't alter the evidence, it alters what is extrapolated from it, the extent of the problem.
I will give you an example, let's imagine we were studying the prevalence of really dangerous viruses™, and we classified such a thing as any virus that has killed. Now take into account that even something as fairly inconsequential as influenza can kill, now imagine we had HIV and Influenza in the same category influencing the result you get. You could very easily make it seem like it's a much shittier situation than it actually is.
That does not mean that you should disregard viruses as something not worth tackling because the rate of serious ones aren't actually as great as the rate of not so serious ones, but it does mean you're misrepresenting what is actually the reality of the situation.
When you reach an incorrect result and you act upon it, you are acting at your peril. As wraith posted above, if the rates of severe violence are at 30-40 percent, it would be prudent to channel aid more heavily towards women, however if the rate of severe violence isn't anywhere near as high then you could afford to instead channel the aid to more pressing matters while trying to work on solving the problem. The urgency of the problem is directly affected by the prevalence and seriousness of it.
[quote]If someone posted a study on the prevalence of violence against store-keepers would you do what you're doing right now and comb through it looking for the tiniest little flaw in their methodology?[/quote]
If I had an interest in the problem being studied and it was of any significance, I would. I don't like to make a habit of accepting any study until I have scrutinized it, and if you think I am stupid for doing so, I think you are stupid for thinking to do so is stupid.
The greater the significance of the problem being studied, the greater the amount of attention you should pay it.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41120904]According to an independent survey of my neigbor, Paul, women need to shut their mouths if they know what's good for them. His wife declined to comment.[/QUOTE]
When will you become mod again? I need to know when to celebrate.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41124889]Like if there were some fluff thread posted about how "studies show, every fourth of July Americans eat 100000000000000 hot dogs" would you get all up in there all like "hey uhhh this hot dog study doesn't differentiate between hot dogs and other tubular meats like bratwursts and sausages so we probably can't trust it's conclusions"?
No, nobody would do that. So why do you think that studies about the plight of women are singled out by this forum for particular scrutiny?[/QUOTE]
Because studies like these are important. No one really cares how many hot dogs are eaten. But widespread violence against a certain group of people, deaths and similar will almost always be scrutinised due to how important they actually are.
if you replaced women with men you would have the same scrutiny. Or replaced women with minority groups - again people would want to know what types and what amounts of said abuse are happening because there are massive differences in the impact of said negative behaviour.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.