Not really. Specifically saying “end femicide” is like fundraising for breast cancer treatment, but only for men, who are a small minority of those with breast cancer.
You are over three times less likely to be a victim of murder (in the US at least) if you are a woman, than a man.
There is zero reason to oppose murder of one sex any more or less than the other, and it takes the same amount of effort to voice opposition for both, as for only one. So going out of your way to advocate only for the half of the population that suffers this fate far less often, understandably comes off as sexist and callous, to the objective observer.
How many in that statistic are men being killed by women? How many of those murders are the result of gang violence that’s predominantly committed against men by other men?
I assume you’re referring to this stat:
In 2022, the FBI reported that 14,441 men and 4,251 women were murdered in the United States.
… which equates to about 79% of all murders.
There’s a lot of nuance in that broad, sweeping statistic, but here are some statistics that are more clear:
In the same year, there were 15,094 male murder offenders and 2,107 female murder offenders.
… so the problem isn’t that more men are being murdered in general, but that an overwhelmingly larger number of men are murderers, and they target each other quite a bit. Gang violence stats are wrapped up in that 79%, and most gang violence is male-on-male.
Here’s another:
Among homicides in the United States, intimate partners kill almost 50% of female and 10% of male victims.
Many of these stats are situational, making that overly-broad figure misleading.
Also, the likelihood of being murdered increases quite a bit when a woman is pregnant:
In 2020, the homicide rate for pregnant or postpartum women was 5.23 per 100,000 live births, which is 35% higher than the rate for non-pregnant and non-postpartum women.
And that doesn’t include all the violent sexual crimes against women and girls, that are also committed at a far higher rate than against men and boys.
The overarching fact seems to be that men kill men a lot, and they also kill women an order of magnitude more often than women kill men, so maybe the problem here is men’s propensity for violence.
e: If that’s what you meant, I agree, we should be finding and implementing ways to reduce male toxicity in general, which includes many things like supporting mental health care and opposing norms (mostly within the online ‘manosphere’) that promote and foster toxic rather than healthy masculinity.
The sex, gender, ethnicity etc of the victim, and the perpetrator, can give very important context that can point to very important issues that needs to be dealt with. If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.
Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.
If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.
Yeah, and as low as that is, there are many in here who don’t pass it, so shame on them.
Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.
It’s the same sort of thing as when there was that big statement made some years back about ‘stop targeting women journalists’, alongside a statistic that 11% of the journalists who were killed over the prior year were women. In other words, ‘89% of killed journalists are men, so stop killing women’. At best, a statement like that comes off as foolishly ignorant–at worst, it comes off as callous and indifferent to male victims.
Everything has context, and context matters. Your can look at any issue from different perspectives and through different lenses. From different perspectives, different aspects of the context might be of different significance, etc. As such, there could very well be a perfectly fine reason to say “stop targeting women journalists”. But that doesn’t, at all, mean other perspectives are invalid.
You are over three times less likely to be a victim of murder (in the US at least) if you are a woman, than a man.
There is a big difference in intent. Do these 3x times men been murder just for been a man?
The femicide(at least in a decent country) is a category of crime, a discriminatory crime, is not a normal murder, is associated with rape or domestic violence, etc.
How many in that statistic are men being killed by women?
Thinking this is a question of any merit already exposes you. It does not matter, at all, what sex a murder victim’s murderer is, to the victim–they are equally dead.
The attempt to minimize male victimhood with this insane implication of ‘if the perpetrator is the same sex, it doesn’t count’ is actually pathetic. For shame.
Reminder that the vast, vast, vast majority of males have never and will never murder anyone, despite these disgusting sexist narratives.
Literally irrelevant. The victim is no less murdered. What kind of ridiculous justification is this for devaluing male victims?
‘But the reason they were killed isn’t as bad (according to me)!’
Who in their right mind gives a shit? They’re still murdered! ‘I know your son was murdered, but don’t worry, the motive wasn’t one of the (in my opinion) really bad ones’. Seriously?
So to push this absurd ‘logic’ just a bit further, if the same number of women were murdered, but the motives were in alignment, incidence-wise, with murdered men, this would be an improvement, in your view, even though the same amount of killing has occurred. Because motive makes a murder more or less bad, apparently. Absolutely absurd.
‘Sure men are killed way way more often, but people who kill women are (I assume, hehe) more likely to do it for a way more worser reason’ is some of the dumbest, flailing, desperate attempts I have ever seen to minimize and erase male victimhood.
Not really. Specifically saying “end femicide” is like fundraising for breast cancer treatment, but only for men, who are a small minority of those with breast cancer.
You are over three times less likely to be a victim of murder (in the US at least) if you are a woman, than a man.
There is zero reason to oppose murder of one sex any more or less than the other, and it takes the same amount of effort to voice opposition for both, as for only one. So going out of your way to advocate only for the half of the population that suffers this fate far less often, understandably comes off as sexist and callous, to the objective observer.
How many in that statistic are men being killed by women? How many of those murders are the result of gang violence that’s predominantly committed against men by other men?
I assume you’re referring to this stat:
… which equates to about 79% of all murders.
There’s a lot of nuance in that broad, sweeping statistic, but here are some statistics that are more clear:
… so the problem isn’t that more men are being murdered in general, but that an overwhelmingly larger number of men are murderers, and they target each other quite a bit. Gang violence stats are wrapped up in that 79%, and most gang violence is male-on-male.
Here’s another:
Many of these stats are situational, making that overly-broad figure misleading.
Also, the likelihood of being murdered increases quite a bit when a woman is pregnant:
And that doesn’t include all the violent sexual crimes against women and girls, that are also committed at a far higher rate than against men and boys.
The overarching fact seems to be that men kill men a lot, and they also kill women an order of magnitude more often than women kill men, so maybe the problem here is men’s propensity for violence.
e: If that’s what you meant, I agree, we should be finding and implementing ways to reduce male toxicity in general, which includes many things like supporting mental health care and opposing norms (mostly within the online ‘manosphere’) that promote and foster toxic rather than healthy masculinity.
I’ll just say this: End femicide.
If the sex of a murder victim changes, at all, how you perceive the crime, you’re sexist, period.
At least have the guts to admit it instead of pretending this is a noble stance.
The sex, gender, ethnicity etc of the victim, and the perpetrator, can give very important context that can point to very important issues that needs to be dealt with. If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.
Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.
Yeah, and as low as that is, there are many in here who don’t pass it, so shame on them.
It’s the same sort of thing as when there was that big statement made some years back about ‘stop targeting women journalists’, alongside a statistic that 11% of the journalists who were killed over the prior year were women. In other words, ‘89% of killed journalists are men, so stop killing women’. At best, a statement like that comes off as foolishly ignorant–at worst, it comes off as callous and indifferent to male victims.
Everything has context, and context matters. Your can look at any issue from different perspectives and through different lenses. From different perspectives, different aspects of the context might be of different significance, etc. As such, there could very well be a perfectly fine reason to say “stop targeting women journalists”. But that doesn’t, at all, mean other perspectives are invalid.
There is a big difference in intent. Do these 3x times men been murder just for been a man?
The femicide(at least in a decent country) is a category of crime, a discriminatory crime, is not a normal murder, is associated with rape or domestic violence, etc.
Thinking this is a question of any merit already exposes you. It does not matter, at all, what sex a murder victim’s murderer is, to the victim–they are equally dead.
The attempt to minimize male victimhood with this insane implication of ‘if the perpetrator is the same sex, it doesn’t count’ is actually pathetic. For shame.
Reminder that the vast, vast, vast majority of males have never and will never murder anyone, despite these disgusting sexist narratives.
Literally irrelevant. The victim is no less murdered. What kind of ridiculous justification is this for devaluing male victims?
‘But the reason they were killed isn’t as bad (according to me)!’
Who in their right mind gives a shit? They’re still murdered! ‘I know your son was murdered, but don’t worry, the motive wasn’t one of the (in my opinion) really bad ones’. Seriously?
So to push this absurd ‘logic’ just a bit further, if the same number of women were murdered, but the motives were in alignment, incidence-wise, with murdered men, this would be an improvement, in your view, even though the same amount of killing has occurred. Because motive makes a murder more or less bad, apparently. Absolutely absurd.
‘Sure men are killed way way more often, but people who kill women are (I assume, hehe) more likely to do it for a way more worser reason’ is some of the dumbest, flailing, desperate attempts I have ever seen to minimize and erase male victimhood.