False allegations awareness month

[Galloism]

OP: Violence should be judged equally regardless of which sex perpetrates it

NSG: OP WANTS TO PROTECT RAPISTS!!!11oneone

I lol'd.

The OP has posted some pretty damning shit in another thread, so this conclusion isn't too far fetched.

Actually, I've noted that OP's shit is well sourced, well documented, and has large swaths of truth contained within.

It just doesn't agree with prevailing opinions. Thus, per NSG, he be trollin'.

I learned a lot reading his posts and the replies, although I think I learned more from him than the opposition.

[Dakini]

Given that about two women are killed by their partners every week and two men aren't, I'm going to go with men are more likely to be physically abusive or at least more likely to be extremely abusive.

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

I read the OP. That doesn't change the fact that women are more likely to be killed by their partners.

[Munathanura]

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

I read the OP. That doesn't change the fact that women are more likely to be killed by their partners.

I think that what the OP is saying is that your claim of two women being killed by domestic violence every week while two men aren't is incorrect. The actual figures appear to say that every week two women (assuming that part of your argument is correct) are killed by their (male) partners, while 1.33-1.6 men are killed by their (female) partners. So, while there is a discrepancy between the two genders, it is hardly as small as many would like to believe.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh look, Captain one-issue is back again.

[Sovereign Spirits]

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

Way to sneak in your anti-gun ideology, pal. It's almost laughable if not for the fact that the topic is about abusive spouses, rather than guns made of black magic that have the secret power to turn people evil for even looking at them. Get real, and deal with one "controversy" at a time, all right?

[Munathanura]

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

Way to sneak in your anti-gun ideology, pal. It's almost laughable if not for the fact that the topic is about abusive spouses, rather than guns made of black magic that have the secret power to turn people evil for even looking at them. Get real, and deal with one "controversy" at a time, all right?

Wait, how is any of that anti-gun? The OP might be anti-gun, although I don't know their history, but all he's saying is that men are more likely to own/use guns, which make it easier to kill someone than if you were using a knife or a baseball bat. I see no negativity directed towards guns, nor do I see anything that could be construed as the OP attempting to insert an anti-gun ideology into the argument.

[Forsakia]

Dakini, did you read the OP?

How about I quote you something...

Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were "over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders." In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, "women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period" of the study.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

The ratio of homicides favors men - varying based on socioeconomic conditions and race, and locally, under some circumstances, leading towards women scoring more homicides - but this is more a product of the fact that men are more likely to have and use guns than women are. (A similar reason drives the difference in success rates between male and female suicides). In no case does it actually reach the reported victimization ratios for intimate partner violence in general.

I'm not going to say that women actually have the edge in murders; but behaviorally, women are just as likely to perform or initiate violent acts directed towards a partner. The simple fact is that men and women aren't all that different; men are bigger and stronger, and thus likely to come off better in a fight; more likely to use guns, and thus more likely to kill; but, on the simple level of behavior, both men and women are about equally likely to hit, scratch, bite, slap, or otherwise perpetrate physical violence on their partner.

Way to sneak in your anti-gun ideology, pal. It's almost laughable if not for the fact that the topic is about abusive spouses, rather than guns made of black magic that have the secret power to turn people evil for even looking at them. Get real, and deal with one "controversy" at a time, all right?

Can you point out the bit you mean. Because the way I'm reading it reads like, guns don't make people do this, but if they're doing it anyway then guns make it easier to kill (which is hardly surprising).

[Galloism]

Oh look, Captain one-issue is back again.

Everyone needs a hobby.

[Tahar Joblis]

Oh look, Captain one-issue is back again.

Oh, look, it's a snide inaccurate comment. Dumb Ideologies, do you have anything productive to add, or do you just want to call me names?

I think that what the OP is saying is that your claim of two women being killed by domestic violence every week while two men aren't is incorrect. The actual figures appear to say that every week two women (assuming that part of your argument is correct) are killed by their (male) partners, while 1.33-1.6 men are killed by their (female) partners. So, while there is a discrepancy between the two genders, it is hardly as small as many would like to believe.

This. That said, both rates have been in decline since the 1980s, which is good; but as the NYT article points out, it seems that mandatory-arrest laws have actually slowed the decline of intimate-partner homicide in the states that have them. The theory is that mandatory-arrest laws suppress reporting.

Suppressed reporting brings us back to square one of the thread title, false allegations. Since I've just been extensively arguing about another kind of false allegation (those of rape) in another thread, I would like to draw together the common factors in a hypothesized feedback loop:

1.) Reporting rates of (CRIME) are low.
2.) In order to be perceived as being tough on (CRIME), policy-makers set policies that make it easier to make a report of (CRIME) that the police are obliged to take action in response to, and that make it easier in theory to convict accused people of (CRIME).
3.) This increases the rewards of a false report of (CRIME) by increasing the probability that the false report is successful in causing action.
4.) This increases the rate of false allegation of (CRIME).
5.) This increases the ratio of false to true allegations of (CRIME), which decreases the expected probability of an accusation of (CRIME) being true and therefore the credibility of accusations of (CRIME).
6.) Due to low perceived credibility, actual victims of (CRIME) feel they are being ignored. Go to step 1.

I would like to invite critical commentary on this feedback loop. Am I missing anything?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh look, Captain one-issue is back again.

Oh, look, it's a snide inaccurate comment. Dumb Ideologies, do you have anything productive to add, or do you just want to call me names?

I'm snide, but I'm never inaccurate.

[Tahar Joblis]

Oh, look, it's a snide inaccurate comment. Dumb Ideologies, do you have anything productive to add, or do you just want to call me names?

I'm snide, but I'm never inaccurate.

I'm afraid you just were. Again. I would invite you to review my past eight years of posting history on NSG, but only the last few years are visible on the Search function.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm snide, but I'm never inaccurate.

I'm afraid you just were. Again. I would invite you to review my past eight years of posting history on NSG, but only the last few years are visible on the Search function.

I'd invite you to seek out a therapist to help you with your persecution complex and irrational hatred of women, but I suspect my heartfelt recommendation would go sadly unheeded.

[Nazis in Space]

I think that what the OP is saying is that your claim of two women being killed by domestic violence every week while two men aren't is incorrect. The actual figures appear to say that every week two women (assuming that part of your argument is correct) are killed by their (male) partners, while 1.33-1.6 men are killed by their (female) partners. So, while there is a discrepancy between the two genders, it is hardly as small as many would like to believe.

But they're men. Does it really count when they get killed?

Dakini's 'Two to Zero' statement in the face of a 'Four to three' reality certainly implies that it doesn't.

[Nazis in Space]

I'm afraid you just were. Again. I would invite you to review my past eight years of posting history on NSG, but only the last few years are visible on the Search function. :p

I'd invite you to seek out a therapist to help you with your persecution complex and irrational hatred of women, but I suspect my heartfelt recommendation would go sadly unheeded.

Arguing in favour of equality certainly implies misogyny. How could anyone miss that undeniable fact?

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm afraid you just were. Again. I would invite you to review my past eight years of posting history on NSG, but only the last few years are visible on the Search function.

I'd invite you to seek out a therapist to help you with your persecution complex and irrational hatred of women, but I suspect my heartfelt recommendation would go sadly unheeded.

Your "heartfelt recommendation," i.e., baseless accusation of misogyny, is noted with all the respect that is due. Which corresponds to that due a $100 billion Zimbabwean banknote.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'd invite you to seek out a therapist to help you with your persecution complex and irrational hatred of women, but I suspect my heartfelt recommendation would go sadly unheeded.

Your "heartfelt recommendation," i.e., baseless accusation of misogyny, is noted with all the respect that is due. Which corresponds to that due a $100 billion Zimbabwean banknote.

Don't worry. I'll always give you just as much respect as you deserve (⌒▽⌒)

[Kobeanare]

I seriously doubt people are falsely accused of rate at a higher rate than any other crime

I don't. Not all others, perhaps, but a crime where there's really no way to even prove it occurred is the best to use when falsely accusing someone. Rape, other kinds of sexual assault, that sort of thing.

[Cosmopoles]

4.) This increases the rate of false allegation of (CRIME).
5.) This increases the ratio of false to true allegations of (CRIME), which decreases the expected probability of an accusation of (CRIME) being true and therefore the credibility of accusations of (CRIME).

Step five only makes sense if you assume that the number of true accusations holds constant while the number of false accusations grows when in reality the number of true accusations would grow rapidly.

[The Parkus Empire]

but a crime where there's really no way to even prove it occurred is the best to use when falsely accusing someone.

Uh, not if you want a conviction, obviously.

[Kobeanare]

but a crime where there's really no way to even prove it occurred is the best to use when falsely accusing someone.

Uh, not if you want a conviction, obviously.

Not really. With sexual assault, it's very much he-said she-said. But you can hardly convict someone of murdering someone that is still alive, or stealing something still in its owner's possession, or what have you. It's rather hard to disprove rape.

Burden of proof works the other way, of course, but still.

[The Parkus Empire]

Uh, not if you want a conviction, obviously.

Not really. With sexual assault, it's very much he-said she-said. But you can hardly convict someone of murdering someone that is still alive, or stealing something still in its owner's possession, or what have you. It's rather hard to disprove rape.

Burden of proof works the other way, of course, but still.

But still what? You rarely get a chance to disprove any other kind accusation in a court of law.

[Tahar Joblis]

4.) This increases the rate of false allegation of (CRIME).
5.) This increases the ratio of false to true allegations of (CRIME), which decreases the expected probability of an accusation of (CRIME) being true and therefore the credibility of accusations of (CRIME).

Step five only makes sense if you assume that the number of true accusations holds constant while the number of false accusations grows when in reality the number of true accusations would grow rapidly.

Would it?

OK, here's one reason it wouldn't: For, say, domestic violence, victims try to protect offenders from more severe consequences. There is actually reason to believe (see NYT article in OP) that mandatory-arrest laws, for example, reduce overall reporting rates.

It is a weak link, though. If the measure in line 2 affects the rate of true accusations at the same rate or better than the rate of false accusations, no feedback loop.

but a crime where there's really no way to even prove it occurred is the best to use when falsely accusing someone.

Uh, not if you want a conviction, obviously.

A conviction is rarely the goal of a false accusation. Instrumentally, the goal of the false accusation is typically something simpler than getting someone convicted of the accused crime, such as obtaining custody of a child when custody is being contested in a messy divorce. Even the fairly directly malicious goal of revenge simply relies on causing the accused trouble, harming their reputation, et cetera et cetera - actual conviction is not always necessary for success.

[Ardchoille]

I'd invite you to seek out a therapist to help you with your persecution complex and irrational hatred of women, but I suspect my heartfelt recommendation would go sadly unheeded.

Cut it out, DI. You know better than that, and you're capable of better argument than that. Argue the post, not the poster.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'd invite you to seek out a therapist to help you with your persecution complex and irrational hatred of women, but I suspect my heartfelt recommendation would go sadly unheeded.

Cut it out, DI. You know better than that, and you're capable of better argument than that. Argue the post, not the poster.

False dichotomy. The evident pathological hatred of women he has demonstrated across multiple threads is highly relevant.

[Tahar Joblis]

Cut it out, DI. You know better than that, and you're capable of better argument than that. Argue the post, not the poster.

False dichotomy. The evident pathological hatred of women he has demonstrated across multiple threads is highly relevant.

Bullshit and more bullshit. It was a transparent personal attack. You know that. I know that. Ardchoille knows that.

I have no pathological hatred of women. I evidence no pathological hatred of women. I in fact demonstrate far less sexist bias than the average NSG poster, and what I do demonstrate are facts, figures, and logic, with multiple credible citations for my arguments. You are terrified or appalled by these facts, figures, and logic, and immediately start screaming "MISOGYNIST!" like it's a magic talisman to ward off critical discussion of the issue at hand. Of course, one thing I am is stubborn. I don't turn away from looking at an issue because someone is flinging insults at me; and when the insults are totally baseless, I become even more curious and more critical about the assumptions underlying the views of those issuing these base and unwarranted personal attacks on myself.