What knowledge could one take from the information in these graphs of male and female fatalities?
Do you find the comparisons valid? Are the graphs inconsistent or contradictory?
- ToddLv 75 years agoBest Answer
In the first one, it compares apples to oranges. There are way more people not in the military then there are in the military at war. Of course there are more deaths on local soil. It also leaves out how many women have killed men in the nation.
In the second, it brings in the difference between genders, but why are we not surprised? I'm actually surprised that they are so close in number. But, it's still apples and oranges, because one (war) has nothing to do with the other (domestic), especially in number.
In the third, I think it's relatively easy to explain the last bars if those stats are true. Men are naturally quick to use violence as a solution and/or place themselves on purpose or accidentally in violent situations.
Comparisons valid? No.
Inconsistent and contradictory? Not contradictory because they might have data from different dates. They don't say where or when the data came from for the service death numbers.
It's moot, though, because the numbers of civilian killings will always outweigh military deaths simply due to the different population sizes. Throw that difference into the mix and redo the numbers if one wants to make a comparison. Another thing is that they omit the fact less military women get killed in a war.
The only thing those bar graphs show is that there's a mild gender difference and that there's a large difference between military wars and civilian aggression, which is to be expected.
- KikiLv 75 years ago
The last one does not say what years it is measuring, and it fails to inform readers that "strangers, acquaintances, and family members" means they are including all deaths, regardless of circumstance. So If a man was hit by a car, and died - his death was counted. You can't pretend that feminists over-inflate statistics (which if you would simply learn the legal definition of sexual assault, you would know that 1 in 4 is not inflated), and then go on to assert that more men die at the hands of everybody, than women do at the hands of intimate partners - because THAT would be comparing apples and oranges. The middle one comes closest to comparing the same things, but it doesn't support your side's claims that American women are safer than American men, around intimate partners. In fact, it shows heterosexual women are more likely than heterosexual men, to die at the hands of an intimate partner. I'll point out here that it does not guarantee that an intimate partner WILL kill you, just that the numbers are more grim for women than for men. And finally, the first one is the least biased, as it clearly tells you what is being measured, and the time frame. More women have died in the United States at the hands of a violent partner than men have died in the illegal war on "terror". If Americans hate terror so much, maybe you guys could consider stopping the terror at home?
- Common SenseLv 75 years ago
The first two are dishonest and misleading in their purposeful omission of the vast majority of male deaths. The third link provides a much fairer comparison.
Funny how statistics can show a very different story when the most important statistics are omitted.
- BeerLv 75 years ago
Propaganda is scary and oftentimes deadly.
It has caused many injustices and atrocities and continues to be one of the least expensive yet most effective weapons in the hands of evil people.