Just today read a story in the news about a guy who poured boiling water on his sleeping wife and hit her over the head with a claw hammer. No further details as to why he did that, and he's awaiting a psychiatric report, but the general rule of thumb is: if you see a story about "partner attacked by current or ex-partner", it's female attacked by male. Women seem to attack children (see that murder of a child by the stepmother I mentioned on here before). Sometimes yes, it's the woman attacks the man, but mostly it's man attacks woman.
And it's hard to tell! Forty years married, then one night he pours boiling water on top of you! Very few people can foresee this happening if the person has otherwise been normal all their life.
Your link is interesting, thanks for providing it. Reminds me of the golden age of British murders, where women were as likely to bump off husbands as husbands to bump off wives.
On the other hand, this data set claims that for intimate partner homicide, it's majorly women:
American homicide victims are mostly men, except when the killer is an intimate partner.
Almost 20,000 Americans were murdered in 2023.
The chart shows the homicide rates among male and female victims. Men were 2.7 times more likely to die by homicide than women.
We can see that for men, most of these murders were committed by friends, neighbors, acquaintances, or strangers (shown as “Other” in the chart) rather than a partner or family member. The opposite is true for women: intimate partners are the biggest threat.
Because the risks are different, the most effective responses may differ too. For women, reducing intimate partner violence is a key priority. For men, prevention is more often tied to crime, gangs, and violence among acquaintances or strangers.
The potential explanation for the difference in American spousal homicide sounds untested:
The team examined police files of spousal homicides occurring over the past three decades in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. The sleuths found that while husbands kill in response to revelations of wifely infidelity, women rarely do - even though their spouses are usually more adulterous. Men will also kill their wives as part of a carefully planned murder-suicide or a familicidal massacre.
Women, on the other hand, murder in self-defense. "Unlike men, women kill male partners after years of suffering physical violence, after they have exhausted all available sources of assistance," say Wilson and Daly in Criminology (Vol. 30, No. 2).
So why are women so much more likely to murder their spouses in the U. S. than anywhere else? Contrary to the so-called "old equalizer" hypothesis, which suggests that the availability of guns in U.S. homes neutralizes men's size and strength advantages in lethal marital spats, American SROK rates tend to be lower for shootings than for other spousal homicides.
Nor has the abolition of traditional sex roles led to increased male-like crimes by women. The peculiar symmetry of male and female spouse-killing in America existed 40 years ago, before such social changes.
The spousal SROK is higher in de facto unions than in registered marriages, more prevalent among blacks than among whites, and more common among couples who lived together than apart. Wilson and Daly also discovered that homicide rates increased among couples with significant age differences. And while they can't explain why these factors give wives more than husbands murderous clout, they have a few ideas about what does.
EDIT: [Another](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104398629401000303 paper has an interesting hypothesis - class and race:
Abstract Wilson and Daly (1992) examined spousal homicide samples from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain and concluded: "For every 100 U.S. men who kill their wives, about 75 women kill their husbands; this spousal 'sex ratio of killing' (SROK) is more than twice that in other Western nations" (p.189). In this paper we examine the SROK for the United States using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) to determine if Wilson and Daly's conclusion can be supported. While confirming Wilson and Daly's summary findings, our results show that the SROK is an elastic measure, varying over time, race, and ethnicity. In many segments of the U.S. population, the SROK is comparable to the sex ratio of killing for other Western nations. Moreover, the differences between various racial groups in the United States are greater than the differences between the U.S. and Canada, Australia and Great Britain, respectively. We suggest that socioeconomic factors and family structure are the major reasons for the disparity in the SROK for different racial groups in the United States and abroad. The implications of our findings for future research are discussed.
...The White SROKs are 48 and 36 for ex-spouse and girlfriend, respectively, and the Black SROKs, 99 and 99 for ex-spouse and boy/girlfriend, respectively. For those couples legally married, the SROKs are 48 and 111, Whites and Blacks, respectively. (Note: The sex ratio of killing for White ex-spouse and those legally married are identical).
That might also explain the number of trans people killed by ex-partner/current partner in the list I posted before; the majority of the trans people on that list were BIPOC. If there are higher intimate partner rates of homicide among black Americans, that translates over for trans as well as cis.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Well, "miracle cures" aren't, by and large (except maybe in the early years of antibiotics when it was the Silver Bullet that cured damn near everything, and then eventually we got drug-resistant strains).
For some people, it will work fantastically. Cuts down hunger, makes you feel satiated, weight comes off, general boost to willpower, even claims that it's an addiction cure for smoking, drinking, lack of moral fibre, and so forth. For most people, it'll help. For some people, we'll be there looking at all the "no excuse to be fat now that GLP-1 drugs are there" posts and wanting to drop a flowerpot on poster's head. Definitely it's helping with my blood sugar levels, and since I got prescribed it for Type 2 diabetes that's the main concern. But the main weight loss is from the initial "this will have you running to the bathroom every five minutes until your digestive system adjusts", for me at least. Nausea and diarrhoea mean no eating, and naturally no eating means water weight loss, which shows up on the scales. As for your mother skipping injections, either try and keep on a regular injection schedule even with the nausea until it passes (and that will take a few weeks), or if it doesn't pass, ask to be put on something else.
The major effects are supposed to be "this slows down digestion, that means food passes more slowly, that means you feel fuller for longer and so won't eat as much". It's had a very weird affect on my appetite. Yes, when I sit down to eat a meal, I don't eat as much as I used to before (I will leave food on the plate instead of eating every scrap). But then half an hour to an hour later, I'm hungry again. And I'm constantly grazing. Small bits here and there (a bowl of cereal, two slices of toast, some cheese, some sweets, so forth) but small bits add up.
Mainly I'm maintaining my current weight, so not packing on more pounds is good, but not seeing the magic weight loss yet. Though I'm on Ozempic and not at the maximum 2mg dose yet. Maybe when my doctor moves me up to that, there will be a visible result? Or maybe not. I'm not holding my breath hoping for a miracle.
As ever, the only thing that works is cut out all junk and snacks, cut down on carbs, eat much fewer calories in total, and exercise for muscle toning and retention.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
it's been a long, long time since my family had anything to do with Scouts, but re: Cub Scouts and women - yes? Den Mothers? though I see you refer to the women as Den Leaders so presumably that went by the wayside in the name of equality or something. Cub Scouts, so far as I can remember, are meant to be a bunch of six year olds so you have the female Den Mother keeping them from poking their eyes out with scissors until they're old enough to graduate on to the Boy Scouts (and then go on to Venturer or whatever if they stick around into their teens).
HereAndGone
3mo ago
These people are nuts but I think it goes something like "animals innocent and good, humans wicked and blameworthy". Sort of a Seven Kill Stele vibe.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
What I'm saying is "work hard and get promoted" is not happening, because they don't want to promote you, because that would mean they have to pay you more. Get the work and responsibility without paying the salary is the goal.
I think there's a wide range of job experiences amongst the commenters here, and what kind of jobs you have/had and how you got them vary greatly. Middle-class kids of middle-class parents who always worked middle-class jobs are going to have different experience of "this is how you get a job, this is how you negotiate conditions", etc. from people whose experience, and the experience of their family, has always been "there's no 'negotiating', there's 'take it or leave it'".
Funnily enough, I was thinking about this in the context of a family member. Worked for someone who was the first millionaire in our area (and this was back when a million was Real Money). Started off with after-school job as a kid, worked there for years. Hard-working, responsible, reliable. Employer (and employer's family) depended on him for a lot. When employer eventually retired and sold off the business, my family member was made redundant. After years of "hey, guy, can you collect my daughter from the airport/drive me to the city/other tasks outside the job", what did he get? The bare legal minimum of statutory redundancy, which was not a whole heap, and not a penny extra. And they would have avoided paying even that if possible. Because they were miserly, miserable, pennypinchers who took advantage of his good nature and willingness to "go above and beyond".
So yeah: slack off, Gen Z, slack off!
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Funny how this could also be used to summarise the men without women vs. women without men Thanos-snapping thought experiment you described. The outcome of the first would be depressing but life otherwise goes on.
You had to do it. You had to make me link to The Crime and Glory of Commander Suzdal.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
What's really funny is now GLP-1 drugs have made it a simple matter of adhering to an injection schedule, so these difficult conversations need not happen.
hollow laughter
I wish it worked like that. I'm on one for nearly a year now. Helps with the blood sugar levels, but nothing about weight. I'm around the same weight as ever (and it takes me effort to maintain that and not balloon up).
The magical "you won't feel hungry, you will feel full, it helps with all sorts of willpower, weight just drops off" results? I'm not seeing any of them.
Never have with any drugs that were supposed to be "and a side-effect is weight loss". One time I was on some medication and the doctor laughingly said "one patient I prescribed this to lost so much weight, he had to come off it". "Won't be a problem with me", I replied, and it wasn't, because no. goddamn. drugs. stop. me. feeling. hungry.
The only time, the only time, I lose even a small amount of weight is when I am literally too sick to eat anything and it's hard even to keep down water. Again, for one of those times, I went to the doctor (for antibiotics) and they did a routine blood sugar test because I had all the shaky symptoms, and the nurse made me eat something to bring up my blood sugar because it was too low to measure. In fact, I couldn't even eat the chocolate biscuit she gave me, so they had to dig out an energy drink.
I still remain embarrassingly fat.
The drugs don't work, indeed.
Just my experience, but I've found if you go "above and beyond", you're not going to be recognised or even thanked. Hey, you want to do extra free labour for me? Great, go right ahead, dummy!
So there's a point between "punch the clock, leave on the dot" and "be first in and last out doing unpaid work". Do what needs to be done, if more needs to be done then do it, but don't make a habit of working for nothing for extra, because nobody will thank you for the hours you turned up and put in unasked.
EDIT: As I said, I started working during 80s recession Ireland so that was perhaps a peculiarly bad time, but one piece of advice we used to get about jobseeking was "offer to work for nothing!" The idea was "employer gives you a chance, you demonstrate how good you are, employer is impressed and hires you on full time".
Need I say it didn't work out like that? One job in particular I remember, I was young and dumb enough to try this out. They were quite happy for me to work there two months dong the job for free, but the minute I asked about "so, any chance of paid employment?" it was "uh, no, sorry, you don't have the qualifications for this work, bye!" That, despite the fact that I had been doing that exact job with no complaints about "you're untrained, you're unqualified" up till then.
I suppose nowadays this goes under internships: be happy to work for the exposure and to get experience in the industry. Paid? For doing the work we'd have to hire someone to do? Don't be silly! (and again, as in the 80s, 'if you don't want this, there's plenty more waiting to take the offer').
HereAndGone
3mo ago
But I make half what I could be earning in a less interesting position, and the desirability means there was a lot of competition to get here, so everyone around me is extremely competent and extremely passionate. This is great in many ways, but means I live in a constant state of anxiety trying to keep up with coworkers who all seem better at their jobs than me.
That has been my cynical view of the "make your passion your work" urgings. Get people who really want to do this job, are very good at this job, and love this job, to work for you for half nothing and not rock the boat because they love the work and think it is really important that it gets done.
All a part of the employee management bullshit about 'avoid paying actual real money, which will cost you, to your stupid workers but instead incentivise the boobs by pats on the head like 'employee of the month' and crap like that which looks like you appreciate them but costs you nothing'.
Then again I started in the world of work during the 80s so cynicism galore there, not the day-glo happy 90s 😊
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Gosh, who knew? Thanks for revealing the secrets of the wicked popish plots to me! Praised be the Reformation, for undoing such things! 😁
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Byron had a different view of it, but then again he was Byron. From "Don Juan":
Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart,
’Tis woman’s whole existence; man may range
The court, camp, church, the vessel, and the mart;
Sword, gown, gain, glory, offer in exchange
Pride, fame, ambition, to fill up his heart,
And few there are whom these cannot estrange;
Men have all these resources, we but one,
To love again, and be again undone.
I think there's a simpler explanation for the demise of the Promise Keepers than wicked feminist scheming: it's religion, Jake.
As a religiously-based and affiliated organisation, it was never going to get traction in the mainstream. And within its own little sphere, later on new fads came along and this faded. Anybody else remember the foofarah around Purity Rings and Purity Balls and the rest of it? They may still be going, but it's years now since I read shocked denunciations of the incestuous vibe of it all on social media.
Re: the Duluth model, I had to look this up and by the Wikipedia article it's been much criticised. I'd be a tiny bit more sympathetic about your complalnt there, save that I read this story in the news very recently. Ex-partner attacks woman with axe, sets fire to house, drowns himself. "Why this foolish notion that women are at risk from men?" you ask, and I point to this. Except for some guys who really are walking around with "I'm trouble" labelled on their face, how do you know that if you take up with Joe and then break up with Joe, Joe is not going to try and axe-murder you? It's a gamble!
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I followed through that part of the link to see what was going on. Again, laughing my sides off at the social worker and foster parent all ready to get up in arms over EVIL FUNDIE PARENTS when it's the girl herself who insisted on heading off to serve God (and pretty clearly is from another world/dimension, not our own).
Sure. Conservatives bad, we get it 😁
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I know, kids have been putting up fake "sure I totally am 18" on the age questions forever. But a 14 year old able to go on Grindr and hook up with a 29 year old (allegedly) who then murders them and dismembers the body after sex is just that step too far. It may all be in vain, and the kiddies will continue to jump merrily over the stile, but I still want the stile to be there.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
That's clear, then.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Sometimes I have to shrug and go "I have no idea how the hell this is working, but obviously it is".
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Sometimes when people are yelling hard about how oppressed they are, it's very tempting to wish they were, in fact, getting as oppressed as they claim to be.
No, I'm not wishing genocide on the Zizians. But given that they seem to have no problems murderating people to get what they want, a little murderation would be "turn about is fair play". Not going to happen, because we are civilised unlike them, which is all to the good.
But pointing out that "look, if we really were genociding self-proclaimed trans persons, you guys would be in the Top Five of the Top Ten of the list and since you are getting the benefit of a trial, not to mention able to shriek in performative outrage about starving to death because you're not getting vegan meals to your liking in jail, that genociding is clearly not happening" can be a useful corrective.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
The son of the local feudal lord, in that case, was kept in line by economic dependence on the family patriarch(he didn't own anything), who just had to pick a stool pigeon smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds(that is, to never disobey, ever, for personal gain) and treat them well.
Weirdly, it might have been done precisely to keep assets in the family in case of divorce. "Oh, sorry honey, you thought you were going to get 50% of everything? In fact I don't personally own anything, it's all family trust/business assets, so good luck with that!"
(I'd been binging a lot of dumb Youtube 'revenge stories' and a couple of these have that exact set-up: wronged wife gets wind that hubby intends to leave her without a penny, steal her assets, and set up with new snookums so she lawyers up in secret and transfers everything into a trust/years back before they got married put everything into the business name so the house, cars, etc. are all technically business assets that they have the use of).
Local feudal lord arranges it so blood kin have the use of houses, cars, bank accounts and so forth, but if greedy spouses try to despoil them in a divorce, they end up with nothing since technically the married kids own nothing. Kids know that when Father kicks the bucket, they'll inherit, so they have no incentive to go against this arrangement. If they do end up getting divorced, they know they'll lose nothing.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I honestly don't see how "trans woman killed by her boyfriend" included in stats about anti-trans/hate crime are going to do anything. Same for the traffic accidents: will we get lessons on how not to drive like a transphobe? The only reason there is to inflate numbers.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
The interesting thing seems to be that for the trans population as a whole, while it's the white people who make the most noise about it, the majority are going to be BIPOC and poor(er) and hence the sex work. Rather the same dispute as about gayness (wealthy white men are presumed to be the majority, this is not so) or feminism (the whole breaking away of mujerismo, womanism and black feminism in response to the same complaints about 'middle-class white women are not representation').
HereAndGone
3mo ago
We're not supposed to notice that, and if we do, it's the fault of Society:
we include those cases where bias, hate, and structural violence and stigma played a role in the killing of individuals, including indirectly through fostering the conditions in which the death occurred (e.g. if a person was killed while engaging in survival sex work, after being pushed out of the formal economy).
But indeed, a lot of the "and the victim was standing on a street at one o'clock in the morning" or "found dead in alleyway/parking lot" do sound like sex work, which is and has always been dangerous, whether you're gay, straight, cis or trans.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I don't expect to convince anyone, just blow some of the smoke away so we can see how big the fire is. The ones where it's (for instance) the 14 year old are very sad and again GODDAMN IT GRINDR HAVE SOME STANDARDS EVEN IF YOU ARE A DEPRAVED HOOKUP SITE FOR PERVERTS but there's always going to be the problem of kids pretending to be older than they really are in order to get around restrictions.
Really, it's just "no, there is not in fact an epidemic of violence out there". 'Former partners kill their female partners' has been going on forever and a day, this time it's just 'even if it's trans female' nowadays.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Ah, that's the update I didn't get. Yeah, a lot of these cases can't be "the victim was killed for being trans" because one, at least, the aggressor was upset because he didn't want the relationship to end and already knew the person was trans. Several of them are former partner, so again it's "knew the person was trans".
What boggles my mind is the hit-and-runs. Someone gets knocked down in a routine kind of traffic accident such as happens hundreds of times, but this is judged societal forces of violence that disproportionately affect minorities or something? I do not get any rationale behind including these, apart from "the demand for hate crimes outstrips supply" so they need to pump up the numbers.
"Two people murdered for no reason but being trans" over two years is a lot less impressive than "thirty-six people killed!"
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Not in the one I found, the guy still got convicted. And there was another case where it was tried as a defence, same result. Gay panic/trans panic seems to be no longer deemed acceptable.
I goddamn will take $100,000 in 1959 where I can go out to eat in a restaurant and order steak, instead of 2025 where "hey, beef is getting so expensive, go vegan!" or what boggled my mind today when I read it "eat venison instead" (that has to be some 'let them eat cake' moment, except where cake is indeed less expensive than bread) and going out to eat in a restaurant will require a second mortgage.
Yes, we have a lot more luxuries today. We have a lot more choices. And if we can't afford those luxuries and choices, Mr. Summer?
More options
Context Copy link