![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ann's comments in the deathfic thread have gotten me to thinking. (Oh no! Take cover!)
She's talking about the fact that millions more women (in this country? in the world? I'm not sure) are murdered than men.
She is, understandably, very upset about this.
She's also talking about the fact that some have labeled this trend "gendercide."
It's that, and the attitude that goes with it, that I've been thinking about.
Let's start with a basic premise:
All murders are bad.
(We'll sidestep such murky issues as justifiable homicide, since they're not really relevant to the discussion at hand.)
Actually, let's take it a bit further:
Murder is, quite arguably, the single worst crime one individual can commit against another.
Now, let's look at the data we have.
"Significantly more women are murdered than men."
This brings me to a question which may seem facetious or dismissive or sarcastic, but which, I assure you, is meant literally and sincerely.
"So what?"
I mean, if you told me that there was some vast conspiracy against women, that would be one thing. If there was a group actively targeting women. If there was some discriminatory factor at work.
But the data doesn't support that.
Consider:
"Unusually tall people have a significantly lower average lifespan than the general population."
Does this mean there's some group going around killing tall people before they get old? No, it's just that if you're really tall, your heart has to work a lot harder, which means it'll wear out sooner. The data proves a correlation, but it doesn't tell you anything about causality.
To which you might respond that murder is different because it's a human action, with motive and reason behind it.
Okay, fair enough. How about this?
"Cars painted red (of any make, model, or type) are so much more likely to be stolen that many insurance companies charge higher premiums based solely on the color of the car."
Does this mean there's some kind of chromism at work?
Of course not. It's just that the color red is attractive and exciting, drawing the eye. A thief scanning a parking lot, without even thinking about it, will find himself choosing a red car over an identical blue one, just because red draws his attention. It's human nature. The way we're made.
(So why do people still buy red cars? Because red is attractive and exciting, drawing the eye...)
Women are, on average, physically smaller and weaker than men. This means that a mugger, for example, will be more likely to choose a female victim. It also means that a woman will have a harder time surviving the same injury as a man, something that marks the crucial difference between assault and murder.
Men are, on average, more violent and volatile than women. This means that (in a domestic situation, for example), a man is more likely to attack a woman than a woman is to attack a man.
Just because more women are killed than men, you can't assume that there's an addressable cause. The label "gendercide" is a fallacy because it implies that there's a deliberate campaign (or, at the least, common conscious motivation) to kill women. The data at hand, however, does nothing to suggest that it's not an accident of nature, a combination of factors which cannot be changed without fundamentally altering basic human physiology.
Human nature is flawed. There's quite a lot I'd like to change about it. But that's not a realistic (or even necessarily moral) goal.
So, with all that said... Am I against the murder of women?
Yes, of course. But I'm just as strongly against the murder of men. All murders are bad.
She's talking about the fact that millions more women (in this country? in the world? I'm not sure) are murdered than men.
She is, understandably, very upset about this.
She's also talking about the fact that some have labeled this trend "gendercide."
It's that, and the attitude that goes with it, that I've been thinking about.
Let's start with a basic premise:
All murders are bad.
(We'll sidestep such murky issues as justifiable homicide, since they're not really relevant to the discussion at hand.)
Actually, let's take it a bit further:
Murder is, quite arguably, the single worst crime one individual can commit against another.
Now, let's look at the data we have.
"Significantly more women are murdered than men."
This brings me to a question which may seem facetious or dismissive or sarcastic, but which, I assure you, is meant literally and sincerely.
"So what?"
I mean, if you told me that there was some vast conspiracy against women, that would be one thing. If there was a group actively targeting women. If there was some discriminatory factor at work.
But the data doesn't support that.
Consider:
"Unusually tall people have a significantly lower average lifespan than the general population."
Does this mean there's some group going around killing tall people before they get old? No, it's just that if you're really tall, your heart has to work a lot harder, which means it'll wear out sooner. The data proves a correlation, but it doesn't tell you anything about causality.
To which you might respond that murder is different because it's a human action, with motive and reason behind it.
Okay, fair enough. How about this?
"Cars painted red (of any make, model, or type) are so much more likely to be stolen that many insurance companies charge higher premiums based solely on the color of the car."
Does this mean there's some kind of chromism at work?
Of course not. It's just that the color red is attractive and exciting, drawing the eye. A thief scanning a parking lot, without even thinking about it, will find himself choosing a red car over an identical blue one, just because red draws his attention. It's human nature. The way we're made.
(So why do people still buy red cars? Because red is attractive and exciting, drawing the eye...)
Women are, on average, physically smaller and weaker than men. This means that a mugger, for example, will be more likely to choose a female victim. It also means that a woman will have a harder time surviving the same injury as a man, something that marks the crucial difference between assault and murder.
Men are, on average, more violent and volatile than women. This means that (in a domestic situation, for example), a man is more likely to attack a woman than a woman is to attack a man.
Just because more women are killed than men, you can't assume that there's an addressable cause. The label "gendercide" is a fallacy because it implies that there's a deliberate campaign (or, at the least, common conscious motivation) to kill women. The data at hand, however, does nothing to suggest that it's not an accident of nature, a combination of factors which cannot be changed without fundamentally altering basic human physiology.
Human nature is flawed. There's quite a lot I'd like to change about it. But that's not a realistic (or even necessarily moral) goal.
So, with all that said... Am I against the murder of women?
Yes, of course. But I'm just as strongly against the murder of men. All murders are bad.