Curmudgeonous thoughts: Violence and Gender
I have ambivalent feelings about the current Commonwealth government ad campaign about violence against women. I am not all that keen on compulsorily taking people’s money to preach at them. I am also sceptical about whenever such campaigns have useful effects. A few years ago, the EU ran an anti-racism campaign. The follow-up surveys indicated that EU residents were more likely to express racist sentiments after the campaign than before.
Apparently, being preached at with their own money by the morally superior was negatively persuasive.
But there is a more basic issue with this particular campaign.
Life-expectancy for those born in 1900 was 51 years for males; 55 years for females, a 4 year female advantage.
Life-expectancy for those born in 1955 is 67 years for males; 73 years for females, a 6 year female advantage.
Life expectancy for those born in 1982 is 71 years for males; 78 years for females, a 7 year female advantage.
Life-expectancy for those born in 2001 is 77 years for males; 82 years for females, a 5 year female advantage.
So, we are a more life-expectancy-equal society now than we were 20 years ago. Which is to say, the men are catching up, though women still live, on average, 7% longer than men. (You might keep these life-expectancy trends in mind when considering how allegedly toxic modern life is.)
There are various reasons women live longer than men. These include: a male is 1.7 times more likely to be murdered, 2.9 times more likely to die in a traffic accident and 3.8 times more likely to commit suicide. A male is also 1.3 times more likely to be subject to assault. Furthermore, a male worker is 11.6 times more likely to be killed in a work accident and twice as likely to be injured at work (hence the greater risk premium for average male incomes: workplace death and injury rates have been declining significantly, which improves male life expectancy).
For those interested in details: cause of death per 100,000 for men and women in 2002: transport accident 14.5 to 5.0, suicide 18.8 to 5.0, assault 1.9 to 1.1 (ABS Cat. No. 3302.0). Rate per 1,000 people aged 15+ subject to assault in 12 months to April 2002 as measured by the ABS's Crime and Safety survey and population figures (ABS Cat. 3101.0): males 51, females 40. Employees per work death in 2001-02: for men 15,740, for women 182,060. Work injury per 1,000 employees in 2001-02: for men 22.1, for women 11.2 (Compendium of Worker's Compensation Statistics 2001-02).
Since males, on average, do not live as long as women, are much more likely to be murdered, and significantly more likely to be a victim of violence, why does violence against the longer-living less violence-suffering gender require a tax-payer funded ad campaign specifically about them as victims?
Now, it is perfectly true males are disproportionately perpetrators of violence (in the ABS survey, 77% of perpetrators of victims’ most recent assault were male). But they are more likely to do that against members of their own, rather the opposite, gender.
It is also true that, of the 5% of assault victims who experienced sexual assault, women are the overwhelming majority (86%: that we know 14% of sexual assault victims were male is an improvement - back in 1992, the question was not asked of male respondents: male victims of sexual assault were statistical unpersons). It is also true that crimes rates are rising (by 13% from 1998 to 2002), as are assault rates specifically (by 9% from 1998 to 2002). But these do not change the above patterns. Indeed, back in 1992, males were 1.6 times more likely to be murdered, so the ratio has got slightly worse for males.
So, why women as victims particularly? Because the issue is domestic violence? Well, no, because you have then written battered husbands out of the picture (yes, Virginia, there are such people). A campaign built around ‘the home should be a haven, not a battleground’ would be the way to approach domestic violence (24% of male victims experienced their most recent assault in their own home, compared to 47% of female victims).
So, why do women-as-victims score a specific ad campaign? Presumably, because violence against women is somehow especially bad. Even if it is less frequent.
Sorry, I thought we were in a world of equality, where we don’t play inconsistent games of ‘everyone is equal in presumed worth except when it is convenient to say that they are not’.
So, I am unimpressed with the ‘violence against women is wrong’ campaign (but the more common and deadly violence against men: apparently not so important - men get explicitly written in as perpetrators, but implicitly written out as victims).
None of which remotely means I am in favour of violence against women: this should go without saying, but in our contemporary world of opinion-bigotry and conspicuous compassion where assent is a sign of status-as-virtuous and dissent a sign of evil, it does, alas, have to be said.
Apparently, being preached at with their own money by the morally superior was negatively persuasive.
But there is a more basic issue with this particular campaign.
Life-expectancy for those born in 1900 was 51 years for males; 55 years for females, a 4 year female advantage.
Life-expectancy for those born in 1955 is 67 years for males; 73 years for females, a 6 year female advantage.
Life expectancy for those born in 1982 is 71 years for males; 78 years for females, a 7 year female advantage.
Life-expectancy for those born in 2001 is 77 years for males; 82 years for females, a 5 year female advantage.
So, we are a more life-expectancy-equal society now than we were 20 years ago. Which is to say, the men are catching up, though women still live, on average, 7% longer than men. (You might keep these life-expectancy trends in mind when considering how allegedly toxic modern life is.)
There are various reasons women live longer than men. These include: a male is 1.7 times more likely to be murdered, 2.9 times more likely to die in a traffic accident and 3.8 times more likely to commit suicide. A male is also 1.3 times more likely to be subject to assault. Furthermore, a male worker is 11.6 times more likely to be killed in a work accident and twice as likely to be injured at work (hence the greater risk premium for average male incomes: workplace death and injury rates have been declining significantly, which improves male life expectancy).
For those interested in details: cause of death per 100,000 for men and women in 2002: transport accident 14.5 to 5.0, suicide 18.8 to 5.0, assault 1.9 to 1.1 (ABS Cat. No. 3302.0). Rate per 1,000 people aged 15+ subject to assault in 12 months to April 2002 as measured by the ABS's Crime and Safety survey and population figures (ABS Cat. 3101.0): males 51, females 40. Employees per work death in 2001-02: for men 15,740, for women 182,060. Work injury per 1,000 employees in 2001-02: for men 22.1, for women 11.2 (Compendium of Worker's Compensation Statistics 2001-02).
Since males, on average, do not live as long as women, are much more likely to be murdered, and significantly more likely to be a victim of violence, why does violence against the longer-living less violence-suffering gender require a tax-payer funded ad campaign specifically about them as victims?
Now, it is perfectly true males are disproportionately perpetrators of violence (in the ABS survey, 77% of perpetrators of victims’ most recent assault were male). But they are more likely to do that against members of their own, rather the opposite, gender.
It is also true that, of the 5% of assault victims who experienced sexual assault, women are the overwhelming majority (86%: that we know 14% of sexual assault victims were male is an improvement - back in 1992, the question was not asked of male respondents: male victims of sexual assault were statistical unpersons). It is also true that crimes rates are rising (by 13% from 1998 to 2002), as are assault rates specifically (by 9% from 1998 to 2002). But these do not change the above patterns. Indeed, back in 1992, males were 1.6 times more likely to be murdered, so the ratio has got slightly worse for males.
So, why women as victims particularly? Because the issue is domestic violence? Well, no, because you have then written battered husbands out of the picture (yes, Virginia, there are such people). A campaign built around ‘the home should be a haven, not a battleground’ would be the way to approach domestic violence (24% of male victims experienced their most recent assault in their own home, compared to 47% of female victims).
So, why do women-as-victims score a specific ad campaign? Presumably, because violence against women is somehow especially bad. Even if it is less frequent.
Sorry, I thought we were in a world of equality, where we don’t play inconsistent games of ‘everyone is equal in presumed worth except when it is convenient to say that they are not’.
So, I am unimpressed with the ‘violence against women is wrong’ campaign (but the more common and deadly violence against men: apparently not so important - men get explicitly written in as perpetrators, but implicitly written out as victims).
None of which remotely means I am in favour of violence against women: this should go without saying, but in our contemporary world of opinion-bigotry and conspicuous compassion where assent is a sign of status-as-virtuous and dissent a sign of evil, it does, alas, have to be said.