Are women more likely to kill men, than vice-versa?

[Anonymous]

Now, this first image seems to say, "Yea, men are more likely to kill women than vice versa."

Courtesy of Homicide Watch

But then... an interesting follow-up graph...

Also Courtesy from Homicide Watch

Men make up a higher percentage of the victims they do of perpetrators by about 5%.

And then there's this...

Despite a 14:85 ratio on being suspects, the rate at which genders get sent to prison is 5:95. That's a shift of 10% down for women, and a 10% shift up for men for a total rate shift of 20%. All other things being equal, this means a woman is much more likely to not be convicted in the first place. This implies they're ALSO less likely to be SUSPECTED in the first place.

So, at this point, we have to consider that getting caught is not a good measure for who is actually committing the crimes. Historically, the most common method for a man to kill someone is by a weapon. However, historically, in literature, women are generally protrayed as killing someone is by poison. It would be surmised that this is a preferred method to this day, especially with the increase in number of lethal drugs, making it easier.

A gunshot to the head is pretty obvious, but poison deaths could easily look like OD'ing on something, heart attack, a pre-existing health issue, etc., and is generally not a first-cause investigated in event of death, especially if it's not OBVIOUSLY a crime. Now, you could ALSO 'accidentally' shoot someone, blame a misfire, etc. And 'accidental' gun deaths are actually the leading cause of gun death. So, if we assume 'accidents' happen in a similar rate to actual accidents across the board...

Courtesy of the CDC

[Side note: They found the 'accidental' rate is a thing with cars too. That car accident rates usually went up with region suicide rates. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-17150135/accident-or-suicide-single-vehicle-car-accidents prove that 'accidents' aren't always what they seem]

So if we assume an equal portion of accidents are actually 'accidents' across the board, we could easily assume in recent years, women murder more men than vice-versa, and worse, they get away with it.

Is this pure speculation? At this point, yes.

However, it does suggest that much more investigative research should be done.

[DevilsAdvocator]

Well, yes, obviously. And that's before we even begin to take infanticides into account. At the present time, the global rate of infant (children under the age of 4) homicide stands at over 7 per 100,000, and has been on the rise since the early 1990s. In comparison, the global homicide rate (which was altered to explicitly exclude infanticides, for some reason- wonder why?) stands at 6.2 per 100,000, and has been in decline for several decades. As it stands, right now, you're more likely to be murdered in your first 4 years of life, by your parent (most commonly, your own mother) than by literally everyone else you'll ever encounter in the rest of your life combined. Yet infanticide is trivialized and excused by society to such an extent, swept under the rug, in spite of the fact that infants are the most vulnerable, dependent, and need to be protected the most.

Across most of the world, especially in the Anglosphere, infanticide has a maximum sentence of only five years, and most often, those who commit infant homicide are exempted from custodial sentences entirely. Why is this the case? Could it be because an estimated 80% of those who commit infanticide are women, and because if infant homicides were considered to constitute actual acts of homicide as well (seeing as how they are and all), the statistics would show that women, not men, are in fact the primary perpetrators of homicide by a significant margin? And because the majority of infant homicide victims, contrary to the media's focus solely on the selective infanticide of girls in some cultures, are actually boys? What do you think?

[myTake Owner]

Thats... I had never looked that up. That's actually pretty interesting.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Well the obvious answer is yes because men are so wired to protect women that its highly improbable for a man to harm a woman. If you look at domestic violence rates almost 70% of domestic violence victims, despite popular belief, are males. Same goes with abused children, not only are women more likely to abuse children then men but they are even more likely to abuse the male child over the female child (and as such male children are more likely to be killed by their female parent then the other way around or male parent).

Many, in the attempt to obfuscate the facts claim how women are more likely to be killed by a spouse then men are which is factually true. The problem with the statistic however is that women are overwhelmingly less likely to be killed by EVERYTHING else i. e. the number of women killed are far less then the men its just that men are more likely to be murdered, killed in an accident, etc.(hell men are more likely to be struck by lightning or killed by a shark then women so all of this fluffs the numbers so to speak giving a false impression of male on female violence being prevailant when in actuality its the exact opposite).
We are just wired to treat women better and to never see them as the aggressor (biology which has also been hijacked by special interest groups magnifying the effect).

[Gottabsavagee]

Well men get attacked by other man as well. I believe guys are more likely to kill women, but there are some brutal women out there who wouldn’t mind doing that either. It depends in what state of mind they are and their personality itself. Jealous women are more dangerous but that applies to men as well.

In either case no matter what someone’s done to you, you have no right to take away someone’s life. It’s just wrong and disgraceful. I hope I never witness anything like that.

[Puppylover_129]

Yes. But men are more likely to kill men then wimen are more likely to kill men in my opinion. Also, usually, women will resort to killing more than the other way around, because men can over power them easier than the other way around.

[BlacklightShade]

Men are more violent. Watch what happens next...

Women have one advantage over men. Men have testicles that are sensitive and easy to damage. Every woman should be trained how to break them to keep themselves safe in the event of an attack.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Except based upon all data men are the overwhelming victim of violent crime from other men AND the overwhelming victim of violent crime from women? 70% of all nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners is perpetrated by women AGAINST men. All the data we have on the subject shows that lesbian couples have the highest rates of sexual assault and violence of any other pairing (homosexual men have the least). So that's inaccurate. Also you hit a man in the testicles and he wants to hurt you, he will that's not going to stop him. Luckily the likelihood of a man wanting to hurt a woman is very slim.

[John_Doesnt]

Do you understand how graphs work? The graph about victims was separate from the one about suspects. Meaning men will target men more often.
So it's guys killing guys. Not women killing guys.

[myTake Owner]

That is one interpretation. However, it's not necessarily the correct (or incorrect) interpretation. The necessary data to determine which gender is more likely to kill the other simply doesn't exist. That is the whole point here.

[John_Doesnt]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact according to those graphs. If the majority of suspects are men and the majority of victims are men then it means the majority of crimes are men against men. Pretty basic math here.

[myTake Owner]

You're assuming that % Culprits is equivalent to % Suspects is equivalent to % convicts.
The whole point I was making is that at each stage where we CAN see the relation between the points, that they are NOT equivalent.

I'll see if I can dumb it down for you. I can't dumb it down that far though, because most people don't understand graphing deltas, and think just the raw numbers are the only numbers they're being shown.

If things were equivalent at each step, and men killed 10 times as often as women, we should see 10 times as many male suspects as female suspects, we should see 10 times as many male convicts as female convicts.

However, that's not what we have.

We have an unknown male-to-female killer ratio. We have a men are suspected about 7 times as often as women. After that point, men are convicted 10 times as often. Then means that there is a social modifier in effect between boundary points that lets women off the hook and likely falsely accuses men. This means, effectively, 40% of women are 'kicked out' of consideration at the social boundary step.

So, if that rate of change at social boundaries shown by the graphs holds constant, a 40 percent reduction, if you reverse it in flow, means nearly a doubling going in reverse (you cut something in half, to get to be whole again, you don't add 50% of that half to that half, you double that half to get one. Because 40% isn't as straight forward, I'm going to round up to 50% since I"m dumbing this down.)

So, we have 8.5 men suspected for every 1.5 women.
So next social barriar, double it...
We have 8.5 men put in the lineup before witnesses for every 3 women.
So next social barrier, double it...
We have 8.5 men actively ratted out by witnesses for every 6 women.
So next social barrier, double it...
We have 8.5 men registered as a potential perpetrator by witnesses for every 12 women.
So next social barrier, double it...
We have 8.5 men ACTUALLY committing murder for every 24 women.

[myTake Owner]

But, to your credit, you are correct that basic math would seem to indicate men kill more than women. But tracking deltas between steps isn't basic math. It's mapping trends which is statistics and calculus - AKA advanced math. If you read the data just using basic math, you miss a LOT of hidden information.

[John_Doesnt]

Ever heard of a Venn Diagram

[myTake Owner]

Yes. I have. First learned about them in fifth grade. Have you ever heard about when you apply and when you don't apply Venn diagrams? One of those latter situations is sequential instances. Venn Diagrams are for instance-state based information. This is a sequential instance. It's obvious you're trying to use basic math in an advanced math situation.

[Passinggas]

All women innately want to kill men. The government excuses the equal weaker sex when it come to domestic violence and murder of men. I think there was a movement in Toronto to make it legal for women to kill men.

[sadassad]

Women receive lighter punishments for the same crimes.

[DWD94]

Men are considered expendable so even if more men are victims, nobody actually really cares. In general, nobody cares about a problem till it affects women.

[LogicBomber]

Society generally ignores or excuses female crimes against men so the first stats are skewed because it's easy to say men are more likely to do something when you ignore when women do it.

[esotericstory]

Also women are more likely to do proxy killings. They seduce a man in a vulnerable position to kill another person, usually this man is put into murder statisitics but not the woman.

[Anonymous]

Surely that just means that more men are likely to kill men.

[Anonymous]

No, while women killing men isn't unheard of, and those that do get a lesser sentence than men for the same crime, men are most likely to kill a partner.

You're misconstruing data.

[Anonymous]

men is violent by nature
i belive
i mean most of them are i think?

[Kas19]

I don't think you understand how graphs work

[Anonymous]

Men are more likely to kill women IMHO.

[Anonymous]

In this day and age..

I don't blame them.

[Secretgardenblood]

Interesting take

[ROCKS128]

can't disagree.😂

[AwesomeLadaaay]

Men fo sho