Perspective, Priorities & Women in Society
Yesterday I was reading John Oliver’s more than justified criticism of the coverage of the most recent terrorist attacks in London; this was shortly after reading an article someone emailed to me about a spike in the number of femicides* in Spain in 2017 (I’m using the feminist definition as in Ellis/Dekesedery: “the intentional killing of females by males.”) The number itself in Spain didn’t seem terribly high. A decade ago they were in the 70’s (per year), now down to around 50. In a population of 46 million that rate is unsurprising.
This got me wondering what the European femicide rate was, and I landed on a World Health Organisation fact sheet.
– UNODC figures show that 18 women are victims of homicide each day in Europe on average, and 12 of these are murdered by intimate partners or other family members. Globally, WHO estimates that as many as 38 percent of murders of women are committed by an intimate partner.
– Every year, approximately 3,500 deaths related to intimate partner violence occur in the 27 member states (excluding Croatia) of the European Union alone, according to a study from the DAPHNE EU programme.
– Nine out of ten victims of intimate partner violence in the EU are women. The proportion of women who are victims of physical violence by an intimate partner in EU member states ranges between 12 and 35 percent.
To put this in perspective, let’s go back to the Datagraver terrorism chart
Now, I’m not trying to imply there are murders that are better or worse. But we can’t ignore the numbers. The femicide problem is graver than the terrorism problem by a substantial margin. Breaking news banners, anyone?
So, ladies, it’s time to crack the champagne! It’s substantially more likely you’ll be murdered by your husband/partner/family member than by a terrorist! Hurraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! 🥂 Happy Tuesday!
My Mazamet 
Cheers!
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah society is definitely attacking the wrong problem as usual. Simply solving this problem would probably solve all others. If we could finally achieve global equality, I figure all the other major problems will go away too.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Absolutely. The framework has been in place since the Enlightenment, but we keep finding ways around it. All people are equal, except…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It reminds me of the frequent bouts of hysteria concerning paedophiles in kindergartens. There’s always some people that want to ban men from working with children because of it.
Yet, the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in the family (girls run a higher risk of abuse inside families, and boys higher risk of abuse outside, but overall, families are worst for both).
It’s fathers, mothers, uncles and grandparents that abuse children, not the 19 year old kid that works part-time at a kindergarten to save up money for studies.
I know people that were abused by both their parents, and I imagine spending the day at kindergarten and school was actually a relief.
At least kindergartens and schools have systems in place to catch abuse, unlike families (and unlike the catholic church).
Anyway, I agree with everything said and will add that there’s also a higher risk for both men and women that they will die in a traffic accident, from falling in the bathroom and from random violence when out drinking.
I’ve never worried much about terrorism. If it’s the way I’m supposed to go, it’s the way I’m supposed to go. It’s of course horrible when it happens but so is dying slowly in a car wreck after an 80 year old demented person decided to drive on the wrong side of the road. Yet, the media rarely talks about such dangers.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Terrorism and gun deaths are way too overrated. For sure, the terror threat does not warrant barring millions of people from traveling into a country. I bet more people die in London in car crashes or even from the flu than from terror attacks. It’s mind-boggling how human perception blows some threats completely out of proportion while completely ignoring very real everyday dangers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As someone in the field of numbers/analysis, how would you explain in a straightforward way, how people can distinguish causation and correlation? And how do you establish a statistical reality? I’m not sure that last term exists in English, so how do you prove a reality statistically?
😀
LikeLike
Hume notes 8 attributes of causality:
1) “The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time”
2) “The cause must be prior to the effect”
3) “There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. It is chiefly this quality, that constitutes the relation” (existence of non-violent Muslims proves that Islam is not the cause of terrorism. A vast majority of immigrants are law-abiding. This proves that immigration is not a source of terrorism. Etc.).
4) “The same cause always produces the same effect, and the same effect never arises but from the same cause.” (To claim that refugees cause terrorism, all or vast majority of refugees must be terrorists and all terror attacks must be committed by refugees).
5) “Where several different objects produce the same effect, it must be by means of some quality, which we discover to be common amongst them.” I.e. if radical Muslims commit terror attacks and radical Christians commit terror attacks, neither Islam nor Christianity can be claimed to be the cause. It’s the common “radical” part.
6) “The difference in the effects of two resembling objects must proceed from that particular, in which they differ.” I.e. If some Muslims are terrorists, and some are not, that’s because these Muslims differ in some respect.
7) An increase in the cause must increase the effect. A decrease in the cause must decrease the effect. (Correlation is one of the requirements).
8) When a cause exists without the effect, it must not be the sole cause. I.e. something else is needed to cause the effect. E.g. to have a fire, you need fuel, oxygen, and heat. But neither cause the fire without the other two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Superb!
LikeLike
Statistics is about probability. And the significance of probabilities is subjective. Are three hairs too many or too few? On your head – too few. In your soup – too many. Numbers can be looked at at different angles. E.g. if you want to decide whether you want to wear a seatbelt every time you ride a car, you can consider that a probability to be in a serious accident is rather low comparing the number of the accidents to the number of the cars on the road. Or you can consider a probability of death in an accident while wearing the seatbelt vs. not wearing the seatbelt.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How about statistical use in the attribution of a characteristic? If I want to say that Ukrainians like to eat meat, I’d have to establish a pattern. From it being the case, to it being the case for the majority of the population, to it being the case for an amount of time that can’t be deemed an exception. What else would an analysis require to establish that as fact?
LikeLike
Statistical criteria depend on the application. Also, every statistical probability comes with a “confidence level” – the probability of that number being right. The confidence level increases with the sample. You have more confidence in your numbers the more samples you examine. It’s an art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much as I’ve said on occasion that I’d love to wring somebody’s neck, I am most unlikely to ever do it. But men are ticking time bombs, what with carrying onboard that lethal cocktail (pun intended) of testosterone and adrenaline. Not much to slow down the rage, once it catches fire. (I’ll leave Oedipus out for the time being.) All things being equal, people (not all of us, but) are always going to look for someone to blame when the heat is on. I’d love to walk around holding up a mirror, but it would be lost on the ones needing to avail themselves of it the most.
Cheers, Pink 😉
LikeLike
THANK YOU!
This is perfect to send to friends and others claiming they are afraid to visit Paris/Europe of late.
Especially as I was shot point-blank (by an unknown as it happens and quite a while ago) in NYC.
Cheers Carolg
LikeLiked by 1 person
-giggles- Aren’t you the bundle of joy. :p
As a divorced woman in her 60s, I guess I’m now as safe as I’ll ever be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Depends on the angle. Now you’re more likely to die in a terrorist attack than to get remarried!!! Happy June the 13th 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
-face palm- Right…yes, I’m going to have a great day now. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great post Mr Pink, well worth pointing out to one and all.
– Esme nodding and waving upon the Cloud
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really great point. It seems that people tend to ignore the critical issue of IPV because of how common it is in our society. People become accustomed to it. As your mentioned 3,500 deaths related to intimate partner violence occur in the 27 member states (excluding Croatia) of the European Union alone and yet there is hardly any conversation about the topic! I personally think a large part of the reason is the fact that majority of these events happen in private and so remains unknown to the public eye. There’s a need to promote victims to report not only for themselves but so the issue becomes more visible to the wider community.
LikeLiked by 1 person