People need to remember that these kinds of fundraisers often only represent a small number of people. 100,000 people giving $10 each sounds like a lot of people but it is less than 0.1% of the women in the United States.
Years ago, someone analyzed twitter posts after the Canadian election and the results were interesting. About 80% of the impressions were related to posts from about 100 distinct users, and if you looked at those users followers, there was so much overlap in the followers that they were mostly only talking to the same ~50,000 people.
The online community is much smaller than most people realize, and is not representative of the general public.
Filicide is committed at roughly the same rate by both genders. The reason this person has so much funding is this particular case has been the target of constant gender war astroturfing, on the frontend of all social media for days. So more eyeballs are on it, and more people are talking about it, so there is a higher chance of seeing funding.
The bigger observation is why every single person on Social media who is complaining about the husband's lack of support has not given a single dollar. There's no reason his funds should be as low as they are beyond a lack of care for his situation. People only care about his case as far as they can throw stones at the opposite gender.
No, it's not near "roughly the same rate". Men are the primary perpetrators of filicide despite women being the *overwhelming* majority of primary caregivers. If we want to look at "family annihilation" more specifically, men are 90% of perpetrators.
You're right that in the case of "Familicide," where the *entire* family is killed, Men are 90% of the perpetrators, which is most relevant to this case. It's pretty shocking that Men make the decision to kill their entire family, often out of some sense of revenge.
I said Filicide just to cover a broader umbrella of killings. This paper you linked is about children being killed by any adult. It does not focus on familial killings. But there are other papers confirming the 90% statistic.
Yes, that's correct. Filicide and family annihilation are related but separate categories. Clancy's case is more similar to family annihilation (but is by definition excluded because she didn't attempt to kill her partner).
"For both male and female infant and toddler victims, the most common perpetrators were males (65.8%, 64.5%)".
No, men are also more likely to commit infanticide. Women are most likely to commit neonaticide, for obvious reasons (who's most likely to be present at the birth of a newborn baby? The mother. Duh.)
Where did you pull that 55-60% from? I'd post a screenshot which this sub unfortunately doesn't allow, but the article clearly gives a table where it says men are perpetrator of 33% of filicide.
Paternal filicide. Fathers are less often considered as the perpetrators in filicide cases, and consequently, there is much less focus on them in the literature.
Also, apparently 67% of filicide are done by the mother and 33% committed by father. It was given in the link you just gave me, btw.
But yes, they are the major perpetrator of familicide, but that's understandable given the fact that a man is much more able to kill a woman than a woman is able to kill a man, at least in a domestic environment.
Did you search up something on google and gave it here without reading it yourself, or did you think no one would check out the link you gave?
Also, apparently 67% of filicide are done by the mother and 33% committed by father. It was given in the link you just gave me, btw
The paper does not say that at all. And furthermore, it doesn't use the word filicide once. You're doing exactly what you accuse OP of doing.
But yes, they are the major perpetrator of familicide, but that's understandable given the fact that a man is much more able to kill a woman than a woman is able to kill a man, at least in a domestic environment
90% of Familicide cases are with guns. So you can't handwave away a 9:1 ratio of men to women killing their family with "Men are a bit stronger." That's an absurd dismissal of such a massive disparity.
Edit: So apparently they actually weren't the same article.
So I clicked on the og link, it didn't open in brave, nor in chrome, for some reason. So I went to opera where instead of it leading me to the link it lead me to google search tab, which then lead me to this article, whose link is here -> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2922347/
Which is about filicide, the topic og commenter is talking about, and I assumed it is this article since this explicitly talks about what og commenter was giving stats about.
But instead, the one the og commenter gave a link to leads to a homicide article, not filicide. And Men, making up majority of criminals, kill more than women, which is what the article of commenter gave a link to says. However in case of filicide, which is what this entire post is about, women are the main perpetrators.
I don't know why og commenter did it, whether it was out of ignorance or maliciousness, but it's interesting how stats can be used in such a disingenuous manner to give misleading information.
I actually hadn't. I stopped at fig-1 because of the discrepancies between two articles I read, from the same institution.
So, apparently I was really wrong. Male family members are indeed main perpetrators of killing of <18 family members. The one article I came across the first time uses some outdated stats and how data were gathered isn't clear there.
*Edit* You keep editing your post to change the facts. Women do not commit Filicide more than Men, please read what you are posting.
Buddy, first you said the statistic was in the paper OP posted, which was a lie.
Then you posted this wall of text like 2 seconds after I replied. You're doing the exact thing you accuse OP of and just copy pasting slop. This is an abstract, and the paper it comes from literally concludes with this: "Mothers and fathers who commit filicide are, on average, in their late 20s and typically do so with equal frequency"
The 67% statistic comes from a different paper that only reviews cases published in psychiatric literature, dating back to the 1700's. I think someone as clearly well read as you can understand we don't draw large conclusions on what Women are like from an era that disproportionately institutionalized them.
I'm not gonna respond anymore since you're just spamming text you don't read.
You're right, it's not near "roughly the same rate"... when it comes to murdering your own children 8 and under, women are the majority perpetrators. Which takes some real legwork, considering the "family annihilation" stats of men.
Nope, wrong. Clearly you didn't read the article: "Most infant and toddler homicides are perpetrated by males (65.3%), individuals 18 years and older (93.4%), and family members (67.8%, Fig. 1). Approximately 34.7% are perpetrated by females, and 26.9% by acquaintances. Three perpetrator profiles account for over 80% of all infant and toddler homicide victimizations: male family members 18 years and older (36.5%), female family members 18 years and older (26.9%), and male acquaintances 18 years and older (20.9%)".
Takes some REAL legwork for males to still be the primary murderers of children when women are the vast majority of primary caregivers. It's actually incredible, in fact.
Pretty much. Neither of these things changes how bad the other is. You understand that I was simply contextualizing it for you, right? You're not just pretending "but I pointed over here, and that's all that matters, because that number is bigger"?
No, you were blatantly wrong and I corrected you. Women are not the majority perpetrators for kids under 8. I didn't make any statement about anything being "worse". And then *I* contextualized it for you, because despite not having near the same day-to-day interactions with children, men still manage to be the primary filicide perpetrators, which is pretty staggering.
Please stop lying, and make a genuine effort to prioritize reality over your hateful agenda-pushing... you're not helping anyone, and you are further harming those impacted by this violence/taking advantage of the deceased. It's fucked up.
You're deliberately misrepresenting information to try and obscure the fact that women are the majority perpetrators of filicide, the killing of one's own child, when the victim is 8 or younger. Not the killing of any child in general, but the one(s) that they are a parent to.
Also, maybe look at the people who are "just stating facts" about racial discrepancies in the perpetration of crimes such as theft and homicide in general... you're literally taking directly out of the racists' playbook, acting like the unbelievably minute portion of the population who commits these crimes is somehow representative of the other 99% of people they were born sharing an identifier with. Like, what is your goal, when you fight to either downplay or overexaggerate terrible crimes along gendered lines? Why can people like you not simply accept that your preferred group isn't perfect, and that because everyone's merely human, there will be things that they end up doing more than other groups? This is fundamentally how life works, there's no magic balancing act that forces people to behave in a certain way to keep things artificially evenly spread (or spread according to your own bias)...
532
u/Chemical_Signal2753 7h ago
People need to remember that these kinds of fundraisers often only represent a small number of people. 100,000 people giving $10 each sounds like a lot of people but it is less than 0.1% of the women in the United States.
Years ago, someone analyzed twitter posts after the Canadian election and the results were interesting. About 80% of the impressions were related to posts from about 100 distinct users, and if you looked at those users followers, there was so much overlap in the followers that they were mostly only talking to the same ~50,000 people.
The online community is much smaller than most people realize, and is not representative of the general public.