Challenge to Attorney General Eric Holder: Correct the Misinformation on the DOJ Website
And yet the Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder claimed on the Department of Justice website (October 19, 2009) that "Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45." He actually made that claim earlier in a speech on August 3, 2009, where he said "Intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45. These statistics are shocking and completely unacceptable."
Christina Sommers points out in her USA Today editorial that it would be shocking and completely unacceptable if it were true, but it isn't true (see table above). Instead, it's shocking and completely unacceptable for the Attorney General of the United States to spread false statistics that aren't even remotely close to being true or accurate. Shocking, indeed. Especially when you see how that misinformation has spread and been quoted as fact by an institute at the University of Minnesota, on YouTube, in books like this one, and in newspaper articles like this story in the Philadelphia Tribune.
Thanks to Christina Sommers for exposing this false claim that has remained on the Department of Justice website for more than a year, and her challenge to Eric Holder:
"Victims of intimate violence are best served by the truth. Eric Holder should correct his department's website immediately."
27 Comments:
Maybe they meant "Preventable Death."
But it's hard to judge how preventable heart disease and cancer are.
If you add HIV and Homicide then the total is 1991 so, the terrible statistic of males causing female deaths seem to be true. Two out three new cases of HIV (AIDS) for women in the U.S. is among African-American women.
Obviously 45 year old black women have an absurdly high rate of being killed by an intimate partner.
Black women aged 15-44 years are totally safe though.
...If you add HIV and Homicide then the total is 1991 so, the terrible statistic of males causing female deaths seem to be true.
I do not think that it is that clear cut. Some female deaths are caused by other females. And many HIV deaths are self inflicted because they are due to drug use and risky sexual activity.
The topic of the paragraph of the false quotation is intimate partner homicide, and Holder was comparing male to female rates in the paragraph (16% male compared to 64% female).
In context to the paragraph, he obviously misspoke, and he adequately supported and should have stated this fact, "Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of [HOMICIDE] for African-American women ages 15 to 45." That’s a mistake that is easy to make in a speech, which all of us do at times, but the false statement should never make it to a prepared statement on an official governmental Website. The DOJ needs better proofreaders.
Here's the whole paragraph from the DOJ Website that shows the honest mistake. On the other hand, the speech is completely untrue, unsupported, and sensationalistic.
"While women are by no means the only victims of domestic violence, the facts are clear – women are most often murdered by people they know. In 2007, 64 percent of female homicide victims were murdered by a family member or intimate partner. By comparison, 16 percent of male homicide victims were murdered by a family member or intimate partner. Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45."
The problem of false statistics in Domestic Violence advocacy is long standing and, unfortunately, intentional since the advocates insist on repeating the lie even after all pretense of its truthfulness has been swept away. The point of Sommers' article was not to pick on Holder but to note that he had been co-opted into repeating an oft-told and oft-debunked lie.
Well this bit about the murder rate of black women from the Holder Justice Department is a minor faux paux when judged by that Holder's previous actions...
How do we know when Holder is telling us a mistruth, factually inaccurate statement or lie: His lips are moving.
Seriously, the guy is a DB.
Misspeaking during a speech is understandable, and all too common. But, for false information to remain on a DOJ website for more than a year, is disturbing. One can only assume negligence or intention, either of which is alarming.
Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of [HOMICIDE] for African-American women ages 15 to 45
Actually, that's not disturbing because it's grossly misleading. Women are "most often murdered by people they know" because women are very rarely killed by strangers. That doesn't mean that women are actually more likely than men to be killed by people they know. In fact, women are less likely than men to be killed by people they know, just as in general women are less likely to be murdered, period. The reason you see this fraudulently-stated statistical artifact is those who spout it are knowingly comparing fractions with different denominators, a mathematical no-no: men are far more likely to be murdered by strangers, and are also far more likely to have their murders go unsolved.
Some simple math will illuminate the matter. Consider 100 men and 100 women. 10 women are murdered, 5 by strangers and 5 not. 30 men are murdered, 20 by strangers and 10 not.
50% of women are murdered by people they know, but only 33% of men are. Oh no! How misogynist! The reality is quite different. In fact, men are twice as likely as women to be murdered by people they know. They are 4 times as likely to be murdered by people they don't know.
randian,
Nice explanation, and you are correct the information can be misleading while still being true.
I think when you put the information into the context of domestic violence instead of body counts, Holder's remarks are not too far off. My own experience has two male acquaintances in prison for killing their wives and no female acquaintances in prison for killing their husbands. Maybe the people I know are different than the people you know, but it seems as if when men and women get into fights, the women come out on the short end of the stick. Now, if we talk money, that’s a whole different story.
My recollection is that intimate partner homicides were in fact about equal between the sexes. Even here there is a misleading fact favoring women. When men kill women, they usually do it alone. When women kill men, especially their husbands/boyfriends, they often do it with an accomplice, usually a man. When this happens, the murder is not filed in the "intimate partner" bin but the "multiple offender" bin. Thus women's murders against their intimate partners are statistically disguised as something else.
The problem is not simply that these things are misleading, but that they are chosen and publicized because they're misleading. In addition to politically-motivated blindness, domestic violence "advocates" have a personal pecuniary interest in misleading us as to the true extent of domestic violence.
randian,
If statistics are so misleading, maybe we have to trust what we unscientifically see and experience. It seems as though there are a lot more battered women shelters than battered men shelters. Maybe men batter physically while women batter emotionally; do you suppose that is true? Either way, domestic abuse is a problem that needs to be recognized to be reduced.
Much more money is raised and spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. So your point about popular yet misleading statistics has other wide-ranging impacts on the male population, too.
It seems as though there are a lot more battered women shelters than battered men shelters.
Women abuse men more often than men abuse women. Lesbian relationships have more partner violence than straight ones do. Why the difference then?
1) Women make more sympathetic victims. Pure sexism at work.
2) Men don't call out women on their violence or call the police when they are hurt.
3) In many cases, when a woman abuses a man it is the man who will be arrested, even if he clearly acted in self defense. Mandatory arrest polices and DV "training" tell the cops to always arrest the man.
4) In cases of mutual violence, it is assumed that the man is the culpable party, not the woman. Often the woman will not be arrested, let alone charged. This is the same phenomenon that causes men, but not women, to be arrested for sexual assault when both partners are drunk.
5) Women's violence is excused, minimized, ignored, or justified. Men's violence is never treated that way.
6) It is assumed that men are not or can not be harmed by women. "Men can take care of themselves"
7) Any man who did partake of such services will, if found out, be publicly shamed by both men and women. They will also be shamed for being a victim of a woman. Women are usually far crueler than men when doing such shaming, though they should know better. They do know better, when a woman is the victim. No wonder so few men admit to being a victim.
Much more money is raised and spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer
True, yet they are equally lethal. It is not the danger of the disease that causes the differential in funding, it's the sex of the victims.
"Much more money is raised and spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer
True, yet they are equally lethal. It is not the danger of the disease that causes the differential in funding, it's the sex of the victims."
I disagree. Breast cancer generally occurs earlier in life than prostate cancer, and develops much more rapidly, and is therefore more dangerous, and deserving of attention.
In fact, prostate cancer is so slow growing that when it first occurs in men in their 70s, they may chose not to treat it, as it isn't likely to be the thing that kills them.
Breast cancer generally occurs earlier in life than prostate cancer
The average age at diagnosis for breast cancer is 61. Not exactly young. It's 69 for prostate cancer. Of course, it's a lot easier to diagnose breast cancer. "Earlier" is a misnomer here, we are still talking about the elderly. The notion that breast cancer is killing 35 year olds is feminist fiction. The notion that early screening is saving women is also fiction; mortality has not been improved by the billions in "free" breast cancer screening we've been giving women.
it isn't likely to be the thing that kills them.
I suggest you look at the actual death rates. Breast and prostate cancer have nearly identical death rates. Odd if you are in fact likely to die of something else. The notion that prostate cancer isn't something you should worry about is foolish.
In the new age of Lysenkoism, scientific data must always be adjusted to meet political agendas.
"The average age at diagnosis for breast cancer is 61. Not exactly young. It's 69 for prostate cancer."
wow, I didn't think know that they were that close.
With a quick look up on google, 61 is the median age for breast cancer, while the average is 64.
For prostate cancer the median age is 67, while the avg. is 70.
wow, I didn't think know that they were that close.
With a quick look up on google, 61 is the median age for breast cancer, while the average is 64.
For prostate cancer the median age is 67, while the avg. is 70.
It is not a surprise. Men tend to be more reluctant to go and see a doctor and to get screening tests done than women.
"It is not a surprise. Men tend to be more reluctant to go and see a doctor and to get screening tests done than women."
In this case, I can't blame them.
> If you add HIV and Homicide then the total is 1991 so, the terrible statistic of males causing female deaths seem to be true.
You know, Fred Astaire only WISHED he could tap dance that well.
Not even GETTING into how the f*** you're blaming all female HIV deaths on males... I'm sure all the women in question were raped without protection by men.
Yeah, that's the ticket!!
> The DOJ needs better proofreaders.
Walt, the DOJ needs better administrators. Like people who don't have blatant anti-male, anti-white agendas.
> it seems as if when men and women get into fights, the women come out on the short end of the stick.
Walt, this is likely to be true if only due to physical size.
But in this day and age, far too many women stick around in a blatantly dysfunctional relationship far longer than any rational person (that is to say, NOT a woman) would or should ever do.
Women seem to always get attached to the shitheads. They pre-select for shitheads, then... GASP! are amazed and upset when they turn out to be shitheads.... and then STAY AROUND even after this fact has become unavoidably blatant.
:-S
Violence against women is bad. But all too often they do bring it upon themselves. That doesn't excuse it but it is a contributory factor.
====
Further, I'd add as an aside that there are women who, for various reasons -- masochism, guilt, whatever -- seem to work at pushing buttons they know will result in violent responses.
I've literally seen women do it -- they berate and push and aggravate in ways they KNOW will result in a violent reaction sooner or later... and they keep doing it UNTIL they get a violent reaction. I've seen a man, knowing he was getting pushed, attempt to leave, to get away, before he lost his temper, and had the woman physically GET IN HIS WAY OUT and keep pushing, TRYING to force a violent reaction.
It makes no sense in a rational context. But it does happen.
Again -- this does not excuse the violence, but it does relate to it being -- in some cases -- much more of a mutually destructive thing, not a "men and only men are bad" thing.
> True, yet they are equally lethal.
and
> I disagree. Breast cancer generally occurs earlier in life than prostate cancer, and develops much more rapidly, and is therefore more dangerous, and deserving of attention.
You guys are apparently getting your "facts" from Eric Holder.
=============================
Both statements are f a l s e:
=============================
According to the Centers for Disease Control --
1) Prostate cancer incidence rates and death rates are higher than breast cancer.
2) Prostate cancer has the highest incidence rate of all cancers.
3)Only lung cancer has a higher death rate than prostate cancer."
Yet federal funding for Prostate cancer is well under half of that for Breast Cancer, and the social attention paid to the latter is vastly greater than that to the former.
Even male-oriented programs, i.e., sports broadcasts, pay attention to "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" -- October.
Everyone, including the sports programs, pretty much ignores "Prostate Cancer Awareness Month" -- September.
What? It's got a month? Who knew?
Source: Politically Correct Cancer Funding
(original source: from the CDC.)
I'm surprised breast cancer only gets twice as much as prostate cancer. I'd have thought it was much higher. What's the number for all female-specific diseases vs male-specific diseases? I'm sure it's more than twice as much for the former.
randian,
They get twice as much money because they have two of 'em and they are at least twice as big.
Post a Comment
<< Home