That is an extraordinary statement. Citation needed.

What you are implying is that most women die or are injured not by cancer, not by heart disease, not by stroke, etc, but by other men. Given that the average age of death in Australia is 82 years, that would imply that very old age women pensioners are being killed by other men.

Extraordinary, but not backed up by statistics. Using the Australian Bureau of Statistics data, only 1.2% of deaths are caused by factors external to the body. But that itself could include injury by any means, such as a car crash. Link at the bottom.

But let's take the 1.2%. Hardly "most likely to die by" is it.

Most victims of violence are men, committed by other men.

[abs.gov.au]

I have read about this. Yes, a women's abuser in most likely to be someone she knows, and obviously she doesn't know enough about him to not be a victim.

@Vpatel Did you deliberately choose to misunderstand what Jolanta meant? Yes she could have worded it with less ambiguity but I think the rest of us knew what she was getting at.

@MsDemeanour @Jolanta statement said "A women is most likely to die or be injured by a man that she knows then from anything else". It is quite unambiguous as to what it says. It says that a women is most likely to die or be injured by a man that she knows then from anything else. I don't think I am misreading it. There is no evidence for what is written. If there is, then a citation us needed. As I have taken the ordinary meaning, it is not clear what you want me to read into it which is not written?

@Vpatel oh yeah! you're right. Sorry about that. Looking at her spelling too, I can only think she was recovering from Australia Day festivities! We need her back here right now to clarify. JOLANTAAAAAAAAAAAA! Can you hear meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee???

@MsDemeanour Yes @Jolanta a clarification would be good. I'm not saying that domestic violence is not a problem, but the thrust of your statement unambiguously says, by use of the word "most", that is greater than 50% cause of death. This is unfair, as it puts all men out there as murderers, and detracts from the issue of domestic violence, which occurs in mainly in young to middle age adults and happens to both genders, especially when allowing for any under reporting by men, but does not usually result in death for either gender.

@Vpatel yes you can say men and women are both victims of domestic violence but in my country, statistically one woman dies daily as a result of domestic violence. There are men who die of domestic violence but they are usually in gay relationships. I'm not saying women can't be perpetrators, I know they can, but when it comes to fatalities it is largely a woman's issue.

@MsDemeanour Gender should not come into it.

But if we must, then acknowledge that most violence from men is directed at other men. The relationship type, whether gay, or man v man on the street, is not relevant.

Yes women are recipients from violence from men, but other men are the main victims.

The focus should there lie on stopping domestic violence, full stop, and not reduced to men versus women.

But this is a different concern to the one you raised earlier, which focussed on my response to @Jolanta. I believe my intetretation is what any layperson would have, but you disagreed. We still await clarification on this.

@Vpatel Why shouldn't gender come into it? It is women who are getting killed from domestic violence......NOT men. How is that not a gender issue?

@Vpatel I wouldn't be surprised tho if she doesn't want to engage with you.

@MsDemeanour It is not me who wanted to engage Jolanta further. It is you that said would be good for @Jolanta to clarify, and I agreed.

You said that Jolanta may not want to engage with me.

This is a forum for rational discussion by skeptics. This includes criticism. Just like you are critising my thoughts, I too am critical of yours and Jolanta's.

If Jolanta is hurt by me asking a simple question as to what she meant by her remarks, other than its ordinary meaning, then she is not being open to skeptical enquiry.

But that is fine. I don't care, each to their own. It is you that keeps responding.

To answer your latest point, it is not a gender issue, as I have already reiterated, the largest recipients of violence if any sort is men, perpetuated by other men.

@MsDemeanour It may be worth reiterating the top objectives stated by this website. These are below.

So if you profess that I alter my interpretation of @Jolanta remarks, other than its ordinary meaning, in the absence of any supporting evidence that directly supports her remarks, and that that now she does not want to engage with me as a result, then this is not following the principles of this site:

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

As I initially responded to @Jolanta, and she has not responded since, and since it is you that has more of an issue with my inquiry than @Jolanta, I will no longer be responding to you.

@Vpatel Good. You're not a very pleasant chap. Maybe you should work on your people skills if you're looking for a partner.

@AnneWimsey Self awareness! This something parents need to teach their children; to understand what is going on around them and to understand that everyone has their own agenda. Thanks for commenting.

@MsDemeanour : I am afraid, MsDemeanor, in this exchange you have come off as a rather unpleasant person while @Vpatel has remained calm and polite throughout this interchange. He has supplied facts while you have only provided triggered vitriol.

@johan17 Thanks very much for your kind support. Also welcome to the site and I hope you get as much value from the site as me

@johan17 thank you for your contribution

The most egregious and long lasting discrimination is the sex industry. Powered by women but controlled by men.

The abortion situation is especially bad how lawmakers have tried to restrict rights. Like any woman chooses to have an abortion for fun. Gimme a break. But that's how the Religious Right thinks.

Reproductive Rights are Human Rights

Trump has screwed up so many things. Yes you are correct

LuAnn, the times they are a changing, and faster than we realize. A lot of old white headed/bald men are not with it, and will be replaced. There are a lot of good things to look forward to. GROG

All religions are always used to keep women suppressed.

@Spinliesel not all religions

@Gwendolyn2018 I don't think we should be minimising the oppression of women by religion by mentioning an outlier. How many pagans world wide? a million?

@Gwendolyn2018, @AmmaRE007 the religions that DON'T oppress women are negligible.

I just posted somewhere else yesterday: I want the civil rights that old white men have in this country.

Hear hear.

I keep hearing that religion was designed (which it wasn't) to give someone piwer iver people (it certainly has had that effect and its codification may have been for that purpose). Religion was the collective human reaction to fear and ignorance -- a way to explain all those nasty natural phenomena. It wasn't designed.

g

Most believers receive these beliefs as children, Well meaning and trusted parents are the indoctrinators. You might say that is getting the "belief through the heart". Santa Claus passes away, but Jesus survives. Thanks for your comment. GROG

@genessa There are a very large number of religions, and indeed many were conjured up to make better sense of the world.

But I would maintain that even then, the process was hijacked to meet somebody's own injective. An example is the concept of heaven and hell.

At some stage, someone made up the story about meeting virgins in heaven if a particular terrorist attack is carried out. Anyone who conjured this could not possibly have done so to better understand the world.

That is just one example, there are many more. Even if the original purpose of religion was to understand, it has certainly then been hijacked to control.

@Vpatel of course it was hijacked. i didn't use that word but i said as much. but the contention in the original post wasn't its hijack but its invention, and with that, among other things, i disagreed.

g

Thanks. Good to hear your story. I think you had smart parents. Talking with children is the key.
How is the weather in Darwin. Sad about all of he fires and deaths. GROG

@GROG The fires are in the southern part so we are free from them. But it is so tragic with all of the animal and human deaths. The stories of the volunteer animal workers are profound to say the least, I can imagine many of the firies and the volunteers in many different capacities will be suffering for years from what they have witnessed. Darwin is stinking hot and humid, we had two days of rain and now the sun is determined to evaporate every last drop of that. Our water reservoir is running at 53% generally by now it would be up to 80% we are just not getting enough rain to fill it up. For the first time in my entire life we might have water restictions in the Top End. We are just not getting the wet seasons we used to.

@Budgie Thanks for your reply. Glad to hear that you are fire free. It is hard to imagine that water would be a problem in the north, the Top End, eh? I lived in Perth for awhile and water was not a problem, but in the countryside it was all terribly dry.

I don't think men come together and vote as a block on issues that impact their gender either. Though, if you have data that suggests otherwise, feel free to share it. Even if women voted as 1 block, systemic sexism entrenched in institutions would still be a problem. It is not an individual woman issue, it is a systemic issue.

You could do a re-write since you don't like my style. I was referring to all of the monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths. GROG

@GROG Why is it my responsibility to do your work for you, and what has inaccuracy got to do with style? And if you meant all abrahamic faiths, my correction stands, since, as it does not apply to judaism, "all" is wrong.

g

So, women get the exact same pay as a man if she does the exact same job? And, all doors are open to women so they can advance at the same rate as men? I don't think so. Also, part of the gender pay gap is that women end up in traditionally, lower paying, "female" jobs because they are not given the same opportunities as their male counterparts.

[payscale.com]

@Joanne Yes. a single variable analysis NEVER provide rational results.

Normalize the variables, and yes, women and men are paid about the same.

This gender pay-gap shit has been explained and debunked from the first time it was posited.

Do the research. Learn how statistics work.

I'd still rather champion for the completely 100% egalitarian thing.