LadyPact
Posts: 32566
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: respectmen
And men are far more likely to be homicide victims of all homicide. So what's your point exactly? Are you trying to say that what you quoted justifies more media attention and special assistance for females over males?
If so, I think that is a feeble excuse.
In my opinion, I'm leaning towards there being more media attention at this particular time because it's becoming a political issue. The reports from 2015 showed an increase for the aboriginal population, while the non-aboriginal rates were dropping. I don't consider it special attention. I see it more as the forefront in the differences in what types of homicides are happening and who is being targeted by what and why.
quote:
If you read the blog, his point isn't about "why" indigenous female victims get killed, it's about why indigenous females receive far greater attention and support over indigenous males. You seem to be trying to flip this around to why indigenous females get killed, and not the actual topic, which is why do indigenous females receive far greater attention and support over indigenous males.
Be fair. If I hadn't read the blog, I wouldn't have followed up to the additional links. I've told you on numerous occasions that I will read written material. What I won't do is click on youtube links that you post because of your bad habit of posting videos where people are screaming their opinion at the top of their lungs. While I don't consider opinion blogs a great source, rather than facts and figures, I'll at least give it a shot.
quote:
The fact of the matter is that both male and female victims suffer. They both get killed. So why than should female cases get considered special because it may be more likely through domestic violence? Why can't the same be said about men? We should make male cases more special because they make up the vast majority of victims when it comes to ALL homicide.
A part of this is because you are still skipping the 'why'. The male on male homicides are much different in nature. One thing that surprised me was the third highest reason was due to gang violence. (Relevant to why the category of perpetrators were men in the 18-24 category, and the second was just the next highest age group.) It's a distinctly different type of violence, and because it is, *that* type of violence is addressed differently.
Now, I don't live in Canada. However, here in the United States, summits on gang violence happen in every major city. (Huge problem in this country.) When those summits happen; they get media attention. Especially when new reports come out, somebody is trying to get re-elected to public office, etc, etc. Still, two distinctly different types of violence. Different approaches that each type of summit focuses on.
quote:
See how easy it is to use the same argument against you? It's no less valid than the other way around. It's a perfect equivalent.
I don't see it as the same. If you look at the data, a lot of the male on male homicides derive from what could be called more 'instant' circumstances. Turns out, one of the other top three male on male homicide statistical data was related to terrorism. Again, this is something much different than IP or familial violence. (One of the major contributors to the rise in male victim homicides.) These aren't instances of chasing a specific victim. Rather, it's ANY victim.
quote:
Where I stand, no gender should get special attention and support over the other. But that's not what you, the other posters in this thread, and feminists/leftists generally want. You and others want special assistance for females over males and then still claim you're about equality.
Actually, I want the *circumstances* to be considered. Much like we do with the legal system here. Granted, dead is just as dead. What were the contributing factors that caused the death? Was it a long, drawn out process? Was it a 'heat of the moment' situation? Premeditated, where the victim knew they were being targeted?
quote:
Tell me something that I don't know. I've had this feeble argument thrown at me at least a 100 times over the years.
Well, you're kind of going to have to deal with it. Men are roughly 50% of the population, yet, they are committing a disproportionate percentage of the violent crime. What is your response to this fact that you already know?
quote:
How the flying fuck exactly does the perpetrator being a male instead of a female make it any more special when the victim is female? If the perpetrator was female, that makes the female victim less considerable?
Unfortunately for you, the numbers don't slide in your favor about women killing women. The problem is, men are killing women and men are killing men. The focus needs to be on the perpetrators as the root cause of the violence.
quote:
If male victims are killed by male perpetrators instead of female perpetrators, how does that make their experience any less? How exactly in logical reasoning does this make their situation less considerable?
The only one using the term "less considerable," is you. However, most IPV that results in death aren't the same types of violence that men are suffering. You are attempting to compare, say, somebody hit by a bus to a person dealing with stage four lymphoma. Both are still dead. What led to the death is different.
quote:
We are talking about human beings getting killed here for fucks sake. In trying to trivialise their death depending which gender the perpetrator was is just utterly disgusting and disrespectful against the said victims and their horrific experience. It also seems that the person who uses this pathetic tactic, is scraping right at the bottom of the barrel in trying to excuse the inexcusable.
This isn't some kind of contest, like we're counting off pieces on a chess board. Just seems to me, the long, drawn out stuff, is more horrific.
quote:
But again, how are the perpetrators being male make it any different compared to if the perpetrators are female? What if I was making the same argument, the same stance as you, when it comes to race? I made out that the fact the perpetrators were black and not white somehow makes white victims more important over black victims.
This argument doesn't work with me.
In this country, there was a long standing history of terrorism of white over black. For a long time there, the power imbalance due to skin color was evident. The ripple effect of it carries over into today. The residual presence is still felt.
For the most part, black men didn't kill white men and get away with it fifty years ago. That residual effect is still present, here.
As little as six years ago, it was still legal for a man to beat his wife in South Carolina, as long as he did it on the courthouse steps on Sunday. Do you have laws in Australia like that?
quote:
Makes sense? Nope. That makes just as much sense as your stance on gender.
You're failing. Not even a word about why women are reported missing more than men. Why do you think that might be?
_____________________________
The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT
Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD
Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.
Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread
|
Canadian gov focuses on indigenous women's homicide - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread