Plenty of women don’t report crimes against them. I think it would be fair to assume that reporting crimes against men in an attempt to sway these numbers probably would’t change much or might even swing them further in women’s favor.
Ergo, if we dig into the data and a) women underreport more crimes against them, or b) everyone’s crimes go underreported and the ratio remains the same.
I’m far more inclined to think more crimes go unreported against women because men tend to be the aggressors far more often.
And I have to add the caveat that I am NOT trying to detract from crimes against men AT ALL during this discussion.
Neither of those articles supports what you are saying. The first one, about sexual assault, says in big, bold letters that men are less likely to report sexual assault. The argument was not that more violence is committed against men (sexual assaults at the very least are obviously not), it’s that men are less likely to report it when it happens, which is exactly what your article said. It also said women under-report. But just because women also under-report doesn’t mean they under-report at a higher rate than men.
I’m not disputing the idea that violence against women gets underreported. I am saying that there is a lack of data here by definition and it is therefore impossible to guess how much one gender or the other is underreported relative to each other. If you want to quantify things, you need data instead of a feeling. You linking these two articles strikes me as you googling whatever you could find that parrots back a conclusion you already had in your head.
The fact that you repeat your conclusion despite not having evidence to back it up is a sign that you might be falling victim to confirmation bias. You should maybe spend a little more time examining whether or not your worldview has you jumping to conclusions in the absence of data.
I don’t know and have no way of knowing which gender underreports abuse more, and the nature of underreporting makes it tough to trust any data on this topic without digging into how it gets collected.
I would posit that, generally speaking, women are generally less capable of harm that would necessitate calling the cops on your partner. Yes this is a generalization, but i think it holds true that men are generally more durable and physically stronger than women, and a lot of times a woman hitting a man is just not going to meet the threshold of that man thinking “oh, violence is being done to me, let me call the police”. However if the same force she is applying were applied to herself, she may get injured or at least be more likely to perceive that force to warrant calling the authorities.
I don’t know how I could prove or disprove that assertion. God knows there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence out there but I’m not aware of many credible studies that talk about woman->man violence.
So you’ve put me in a place where the restrictions you impose on the argument make it impossible to prove by a) rejecting the provided evidence, b) saying it’s “feeling” even though I cited evidence and offered the opinion that it’s not good enough just because what? It showed up in search results?, c) declined to provide any counter evidence by your own.
No, we cannot know the unknown for the purposes of this discussion, but the preponderance of the evidence points to men being more likely to engage in violence against women, and women are less likely to report it. So by sheer numbers, it is likely (note this is the second time I used conditional language) that it is weighted towards women underreporting. Per capita (crime per person per report)? Not a clue.
Yes, I repeat my conclusion because I am making my argument, seeing as you provided nothing to refute other than opinion, not trying to do your job and prove yours for you.
It’s also known that plenty of men don’t report sexual assaults by women against them because then they would be seen as weak or “lucky” because “You didn’t get raped, she just wanted to. I wish I were you!”
Plenty of women don’t report crimes against them. I think it would be fair to assume that reporting crimes against men in an attempt to sway these numbers probably would’t change much or might even swing them further in women’s favor.
By definition you do not have the data for this argument to be credible.
Sexual assaults on women not reported
https://womenfamilies.org/why-most-sexual-assaults-are-not-reported/
Domestic abuse goes unreported by women
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-08/reasons-why-victim-survivors-dont-report-domestic-violence/100035002
Ergo, if we dig into the data and a) women underreport more crimes against them, or b) everyone’s crimes go underreported and the ratio remains the same.
I’m far more inclined to think more crimes go unreported against women because men tend to be the aggressors far more often.
And I have to add the caveat that I am NOT trying to detract from crimes against men AT ALL during this discussion.
Neither of those articles supports what you are saying. The first one, about sexual assault, says in big, bold letters that men are less likely to report sexual assault. The argument was not that more violence is committed against men (sexual assaults at the very least are obviously not), it’s that men are less likely to report it when it happens, which is exactly what your article said. It also said women under-report. But just because women also under-report doesn’t mean they under-report at a higher rate than men.
I’m not disputing the idea that violence against women gets underreported. I am saying that there is a lack of data here by definition and it is therefore impossible to guess how much one gender or the other is underreported relative to each other. If you want to quantify things, you need data instead of a feeling. You linking these two articles strikes me as you googling whatever you could find that parrots back a conclusion you already had in your head.
The fact that you repeat your conclusion despite not having evidence to back it up is a sign that you might be falling victim to confirmation bias. You should maybe spend a little more time examining whether or not your worldview has you jumping to conclusions in the absence of data.
I don’t know and have no way of knowing which gender underreports abuse more, and the nature of underreporting makes it tough to trust any data on this topic without digging into how it gets collected.
I would posit that, generally speaking, women are generally less capable of harm that would necessitate calling the cops on your partner. Yes this is a generalization, but i think it holds true that men are generally more durable and physically stronger than women, and a lot of times a woman hitting a man is just not going to meet the threshold of that man thinking “oh, violence is being done to me, let me call the police”. However if the same force she is applying were applied to herself, she may get injured or at least be more likely to perceive that force to warrant calling the authorities.
I don’t know how I could prove or disprove that assertion. God knows there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence out there but I’m not aware of many credible studies that talk about woman->man violence.
So you’ve put me in a place where the restrictions you impose on the argument make it impossible to prove by a) rejecting the provided evidence, b) saying it’s “feeling” even though I cited evidence and offered the opinion that it’s not good enough just because what? It showed up in search results?, c) declined to provide any counter evidence by your own.
No, we cannot know the unknown for the purposes of this discussion, but the preponderance of the evidence points to men being more likely to engage in violence against women, and women are less likely to report it. So by sheer numbers, it is likely (note this is the second time I used conditional language) that it is weighted towards women underreporting. Per capita (crime per person per report)? Not a clue.
Yes, I repeat my conclusion because I am making my argument, seeing as you provided nothing to refute other than opinion, not trying to do your job and prove yours for you.
Not to sound like a broken record, but the statistics themselves cannot be trusted. So bringing up statistics doesn’t support your argument.
So basically, you’ve made up your mind and there’s no evidence that could ever be presented to you to change it.
Because there exists evidence that makes these statistics unreliable.
Yes, this is what s/he is saying. They set an undefined and therefore unattainable standard for the purposes of this argument.
It’s also known that plenty of men don’t report sexual assaults by women against them because then they would be seen as weak or “lucky” because “You didn’t get raped, she just wanted to. I wish I were you!”
He just said that. Why did you repeat it?
Because they don’t report the offences against them for different reasons.
Women don’t report crimes because no one will believe them, they’re over exaggerating, or it never happened.
When men don’t report it, it’s because they’re pussies, why didn’t they enjoy it, or belittled by other men because “well you had sex so shut up”.
I didn’t repeat anything they said. I laid out the difference in which the genders may underreport and why.