The trouble I have with Bakari's argument is that there are a whole host of other variables to be considered aside from just gender. I was already well aware that more men are murdered on average than women, but the reasons behind those murders and where they occur are much harder to tease out.
I should have been more clear that I was talking about crimes committed by strangers specificallyhttp://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf
(page 2) Actually, this report shows male's chances of being a victim by a stranger
as even higher than the data I posted the first time
And when it comes to random violence, I think that a lot of it boils down to, as another poster already put it, having the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's pretty rare.
For example, where I live the City of Richmond has a far higher homicide rate than the County of Chersterfield. That is in large part due to the fact that there is a much higher concentration of poverty in the city than the county. There are no housing projects in Chesterfield County. Where you have a housing project, you will have a lot of crime. The wrong place is more likely to be in economically depressed areas. The wrong time is at night. Who is more likely to be on the streets of a housing project after dark? A male. Trust me, I've been in enough bad neighborhoods to know.
So in my case a little common sense goes a long way here. If I am targeting a complete stranger, which happens fairly rarely but still happens, am I going to target a big guy on the bike moving faster or the much smaller woman on a bike moving slower? Probably neither, target comes and goes too fast. What happens when either of the two has a breakdown? Most working class neighborhoods are safer than people imagine, but they are still safer for larger men familiar with their surroundings than smaller women who aren't.
I've already had to tell a lot of people that my ride home is a lot safer than they imagine, but that does not mean it is 100% safe, because nothing is 100% safe. There simply reaches a point where a little caution is prudent, and I stand by the notion that I would not recommend the path I take for my very attractive and not very strong daughter. I don't consider my situation to be sexist at all, but Bakari is free to disagree. Of course, he is doing so without any firsthand knowledge.....
Do you mean first hand knowledge of your sexism or lack there of? I wasn't saying you personally were. I was saying we, collectively, as a society have ingrained it so much that it is invisible.
If it were really a question of individual's vulnerability, there would be no reason to even mention gender.
But let's be honest - who is more likely to have concern for their safety expressed:
a 120lb, 5'4" male, or a 160lb 5'9" female athlete?
By similar logic, are we to assume that we save "women and children first" from a sinking ship is because, unlike women, men have a natural ability to breath underwater? Or is it more likely that patriarchal society teaches us that women are weak and vulnerable, and men should be their protectors?
It may be true that the average
male is stronger than the average
female, but there are still millions of women who are stronger than millions of men.
did you mean no first hand knowledge of dangerous neighborhoods? I've lived almost my entire life in poor, high crime neighborhoods (Richmond and Oakland, CA). And as long as we are going by anecdote instead of stats, myself and nearly every male friend I know has been mugged, or jumped, or in someway assaulted by strangers, most of us more than once. Almost none of my females have ever been assaulted by strangers. Believe it or not, but I have always seen equal numbers of each gender out at night, or walking somewhere secluded, or by themselves (or all 3).
Your "common sense" begins with the conclusion, and then finds a way to justify it. Why do you assume the male is riding faster? Why do you assume he is familiar with his surroundings, but she isn't?
Well if we are just going to throw metrics out the window, then: my common sense is different from yours and is just as legitimate.
No one is going to beat up a random woman to prove their masculinity, which is what a lot of teenage crime is about. "Boo-ya, we're so tough, we totally destroyed that biker!" "Awright, dude, how big was he?" "Uh, it was a little girl, actually." "Uh..."
And muggers are less likely to go after women. You want to be facing a jury for attacking a 200 pound guy or for attacking a 110-pound woman?
I suspect this is close to the truth.
Aside from sociopaths, even criminals have a code of conduct.
"Never hit a woman" is right up there with "Don't be a snitch"
Ironically, the same ingrained sexism that tells us women must be victims more often is likely the reason why they aren't!
Women are a greater rape target outside of prison, sure...
True - but not remotely nearly as much as "common knowledge" has us believe. The reason for the 1:10 ratio of male to female victims of rape is because rape is defined as
sexual penetration. If instead you define it as "non-consensual sexual contact" the ratio changes to 2:3. It still makes female's statistical risk slightly higher, but that is a huge
Similarly common knowledge tells us the perpetrators are 99% male, and data reinforces that so long as you use the same narrow definition. If you look at non-consensual sexual contact, 60% of the perpetrators against men are women.
Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread with one of my pet topics.
Same here. I've already written enough on that topic