An estimated 140 women and girls across the world die at the hands of their partner or family member every day, according to new global estimates on femicide by the UN.

The report by UN Women found 85,000 women and girls were killed intentionally by men in 2023, with 60% (51,100) of these deaths committed by someone close to the victim. The organisation said its figures showed that, globally, the most dangerous place for a woman to be was in her home, where the majority of women die at the hands of men.

Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, UN Women’s deputy executive director, said: “What the data is telling us is that it is the private and domestic sphere’s of women’s lives, where they should be safest, that so many of them are being exposed to deadly violence.

  • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    No, I know what you’re saying about discrete numbers and historical ones. I never once tried to represent anything as a discrete number, by nature of the subject matter this conversation cannot be about discrete numbers because again BEING A VICTIM DOES NOT STOP WHEN INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF ABUSE ARE NO LONGER OCCURRING.

    What is incoherent is someone being like “here’s factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted” and your response is “okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted”. I can understand why the specific phrase “victimization rate” could come off as confusing? But even in the context of discrete vs historical there are some figures supporting a discrete interpretation of this. Like from previous figures I’ve given 61% of women reporting unwanted sexual behaviors by men between the ages of 15 and 24. That would indicate that yes at present somewhere around 60% of women in that age demographic have recently experienced gender based sexual violence.

    This is also not about winning anyone over to a cause. This is a statement of fact, the extent to which women are abused by men. To the point that the majority of women are victims of gender based violence from men.

    You entirely skipped over the first part of my last message as well. A discrete number would be entirely unhelpful in assessing the extent to which women are being victimized by men because women are not all being victimized at the same time and women do not stop being victims once they aren’t being actively victimized.

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      What is incoherent is someone being like “here’s factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted” and your response is “okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted”

      What part about this do you not understand. It’s not complicated.

      There’s a huge difference in “how many people have had their home burn down” vs “how many homes are at risk of burning down right now” and the latter was what was being originally discussed

      They are entirely different conversations.

      When the current actuall convo is about “what’s the risk of your house burning down right now” and the answer is “quite low”, but then you butt in and go “nuh uh, like 60% of people have had a house burn down in the past” you sound ridiculous.

      You in that moment demonstrate either:

      1. You don’t understand how stats work and why your number is irrelevant to the convo. Or
      2. You do know how they work, and thus are being actively disingenuous.

      Either way, go figure yourself out. Your numbers aren’t relevant here, go either find the numbers that are relevant, or at least stop muddling the waters with bad math.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Omg are you seriously coming here to talk over me while I’m spreading awareness about how prolific gender based violence against women is? Who tf are you? We aren’t in a fucking stats classroom or whatever you think this is. The absolute and utter detachment you seem to have towards a subject like systemic violence against women is honestly insane. There exists no rule stating that I can’t bring up another data set in a discussion on violence against women. Literally not one human being has ever said that. It is also absolutely relevant data to the topic at hand. And then people like you wonder why we feel like men don’t care about how we are bring abused. You’d rather pedantically talk over me about the classification of data sets then actually meaningfully engage with the fact that women are so likely to be physically or sexually abused by men that 60% of women in a specific age range of 15 to 24 have experienced that. Which is saying nothing of girls under 15 and women 25 and over.

        If 60% of the population of women will be sexually or physically abused by male intimate partners then OVER HALF of women are victims of intimate partner violence. That is the takeaway. If you have no interest in talking about this, then go do something else with your time.

        • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          You interjected in the discussion with non-relevant stats, and are now getting mad when called out on it.

          Your stats you are presenting aren’t relevant to the post I made. Deal with it and go throw a tantrum somewhere else. I posted first, you are trying to talk over me

          Go find an echo chamber to complain to instead of cluttering up discussions with irrelevance and throwing tantrums while people are trying to talk about the actual facts that are relevant.

          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah youre right a post about femicide by intimate partners has no connection with rates of intimate partner violence.

            I also didnt respond to your fucking post with those stats I was responding to another commenter. Everything else I said stands.

            • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Historical odds of experiencing violence in the past has no relevance to discrete odds of danger now, correct.

              Glad you finally figured it out.

              Having experienced food poisoning 5 years ago has zero relevance to the question of “is this current dish I am about to eat safe?”

              The latter is the discussion you are insisting on butting in on and trying to steer the convo towards the former.

              No one gives a shit about your food poisoning from 5 years ago Karen, we are discussing if this dish right now is poisoned or not.