Experts say U.S. among 10 most dangerous nations for women

[UglyCasanova]

Link

The United States has been ranked for the first time among the ten nations deemed to be the most dangerous for women by experts in the field. A survey by the Thomson Reuters Foundation of about 550 experts in women's issues around the globe labelled the U.S. the 10th most dangerous nation in terms of the risk of sexual violence, harassment and being coerced into sex.

The foundation said the U.S. placement on the dubious list was down largely to the #MeToo and Time's Up campaigns increasing awareness of sexual violence and intimidation of women in the U.S. in the wake of the criminal allegations against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.

Very interesting rationale. The list, do you agree/disagree? Is the US a more dangerous place for women, than, say, Honduras?

1. India

2. Afghanistan

3. Syria

4. Somalia

5. Saudi Arabia

6. Pakistan

7. Democratic Republic of Congo

8. Yemen

9. Nigeria

10. United States.

 

[woolfe9998]

There is zero methodology here. They just polled a bunch of "experts" most of whom are likely political activists, and asked for their subjective opinions. If you want to know which places are most dangerous for women, look at data regarding the actual rate of violence directed at women in various countries. The existence of a "me too" movement calling awareness to the fact that certain celebrities are guilty of various forms of sexual misconduct against women doesn't somehow catapult the US on to this list.

A case made without facts is a case not made.

 

[Victorian Gray]

A bit more detail from Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-dangerous-countries-for-women-idUSKBN1JM01Z

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-women-amid-metoo-campaign-poll-idUSKBN1JM02G

 

[woolfe9998]

Better source of information on this topic:

http://www.endvawnow.org/uploads/browser/files/vaw_prevalence_matrix_15april_2011.pdf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Better source of information on this topic:

http://www.endvawnow.org/uploads/browser/files/vaw_prevalence_matrix_15april_2011.pdf

Well that kills 10th place.

 

[pmv]

I don't get how they define it. Is it 'relative to how dangerous the country is for everyone'? Because lots of countries have far lower life-expectancy for women than does the US. Aren't disease, malnutrition, etc dangers? And often they are dangers that are a result of political and human choices, so not entirely distinct from 'violence'. And violence itself is very hard to compare due to different reporting rates and definitions.

Much as I'm not adverse to see Trump's America get a bad rap, I don't really get this one.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't get how they define it. Is it 'relative to how dangerous the country is for everyone'? Because lots of countries have far lower life-expectancy for women than does the US. Aren't disease, malnutrition, etc dangers? And often they are dangers that are a result of political and human choices, so not entirely distinct from 'violence'. And violence itself is very hard to compare due to different reporting rates and definitions.

Much as I'm not adverse to see Trump's America get a bad rap, I don't really get this one.

"They" define it however they like. Each of these "experts" may be defining it differently. That's what I mean when I say there is no methodology. It's a poll of certain people, not a scientific or fact based approach.

 

[UglyCasanova]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617422926/partner-violence-in-papua-new-guinea

Here's a startling figure - 2 of every 3 women living in Papua New Guinea - two-thirds of women - will experience abuse from an intimate partner at some point in their lives. That is one of the highest rates of that form of violence in the world.

10. United States.

 

[woolfe9998]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617422926/partner-violence-in-papua-new-guinea

Here's a startling figure - 2 of every 3 women living in Papua New Guinea - two-thirds of women - will experience abuse from an intimate partner at some point in their lives. That is one of the highest rates of that form of violence in the world.

If you have your own opinion on the topic you started, please state it. Please do not start a thread asking other people questions, then hide the ball.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If you have your own opinion on the topic you started, please state it. Please do not start a thread asking other people questions, then hide the ball.

Yes sir.

For those who can't gather my opinion from me questioning it in comparison to Honduras, or putting up an NPR link showing that Papua New Guinea has one of the highest rates of sexual violence towards women but doesn't appear on the list: I think it's a crap list.

Hysteria and hyperbole just cause people to tone out issues rather than pay attention to them. Putting the US as 10th most dangerous towards women doesn't advance the issue of womens rights and I'd argue does more harm than good.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes sir.

For those who can't gather my opinion from me questioning it in comparison to Honduras, or putting up an NPR link showing that Papua New Guinea has one of the highest rates of sexual violence towards women but doesn't appear on the list: I think it's a crap list.

Hysteria and hyperbole just cause people to tone out issues rather than pay attention to them. Putting the US as 10th most dangerous towards women doesn't advance the issue of womens rights and I'd argue does more harm than good.

Thank you.

 

[UglyCasanova]

 

[Gryz]

1 Million dead people in Iraq. Statistically half of them were women. That's 500k.

600k dead people in Syria. Not direct violence by the US. But it was a civil war that was stirred up by Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and backed by the US. Long live "geopolitical strategies". That's another 300k dead women.

Vietnam had over half a million civilian deaths. Caused by both sides. But please someone explain to me what the US was doing raging a war 10k km from home. That's another 100k-200k dead women that can be added to the US death conto.

Afghanistan was a hellhole before 2001. But the US intervention didn't make it much better. Only 30k civilian deaths.

Anyway, adding up all the female victims of "US geopolitical warfare" and playing "world police", I guess about a million foreign women died because of violence caused by, or started by, the US. Way to go. I guess you have to go back to the Khmer Rouge or even WWII to get those numbers.

Yes, the US seems to be very dangerous for women worldwide.

 

[soundforbjt]

Well that kills 10th place.

Don't worry, Trump's on it...a real leader.

 

[woolfe9998]

1 Million dead people in Iraq. Statistically half of them were women. That's 500k.

600k dead people in Syria. Not direct violence by the US. But it was a civil war that was stirred up by Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and backed by the US. Long live "geopolitical strategies". That's another 300k dead women.

Vietnam had over half a million civilian deaths. Caused by both sides. But please someone explain to me what the US was doing raging a war 10k km from home. That's another 100k-200k dead women that can be added to the US death conto.

Afghanistan was a hellhole before 2001. But the US intervention didn't make it much better. Only 30k civilian deaths.

Anyway, adding up all the female victims of "US geopolitical warfare" and playing "world police", I guess about a million foreign women died because of violence caused by, or started by, the US. Way to go. I guess you have to go back to the Khmer Rouge or even WWII to get those numbers.

Yes, the US seems to be very dangerous for women worldwide.

Not buying this logic at all. If violence is not directed at women as such, then it doesn't make any sense for that to be an inclusion criteria. You can say that makes it "dangerous for women" but that is a meaningless statement if it is also equally dangerous for men.

 

[Commodus]

I don't always agree with UC, as you may have noticed, but I'd agree here.

My girlfriend is from South Africa. She noted that there are many neighborhoods where it's not safe in general, but as a woman she wouldn't dare walk alone in large parts of major urban areas like Johannesburg or Durban. Not that sexual assault was guaranteed -- just that the risk was far higher than in North America.

While the US is more dangerous for women than multiple developed countries (and the Trump administration certainly isn't helping), I wouldn't put it that high up.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't always agree with UC, as you may have noticed, but I'd agree here.

My girlfriend is from South Africa. She noted that there are many neighborhoods where it's not safe in general, but as a woman she wouldn't dare walk alone in large parts of major urban areas like Johannesburg or Durban. Not that sexual assault was guaranteed -- just that the risk was far higher than in North America.

While the US is more dangerous for women than multiple developed countries (and the Trump administration certainly isn't helping), I wouldn't put it that high up.

Are you basing that off data which show higher prevalence of violence against women in the US as compared to other developed countries? If so, please link it. You may well be correct but I can't find data to confirm or refute what you're saying. Closest I can come:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...n-the-u-k-compares-to-stats-across-the-world/

 

[Phenzyn]

I wonder how many of the "experts" polled on this study were actually women.

It stinks to me like this thread, a bunch of men arguing over if it's really this "dangerous" to be a woman in the US. Like a bunch of white people arguing over how difficult it is to be black, there is no way a man can know what it's like to be a woman or vice versa.

There is no way in my mind that most well educated, well traveled women would buy into this. I am not going to look up the 193 countries in the UN and cross off the obvious countries that aren't part of it that would be so much higher on this list, and cross reference it against countries I've either been to or consider myself well enough educated on - so perhaps there is "some" validity to this but dangerous is a strong word.

Perhaps the point could have been better conveyed if it said something along the lines of "hardship" in being a woman in the modern age. As a liberal woman, I feel like I am the target audience for this study and yet I find it difficult to take seriously.

When they break it down like this:

"most dangerous for women and which country was worst in terms of health care, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking,"​

It makes more sense and holds more water as a few of these points are much more valid then others.

1) Health care - Health care sucks for all Americans, this is just as much an issue for men as women. Sure we have the other health risks tied to procreation, but that's true the world over. I guess it's true but again, true for men and woman alike, and affects poor people the most. I don't see any data that shows there are more poor women then men, in fact, the opposite is true if you just look at homeless data.

2) Economic resources - I have a hard time buying this, I know the "we earn 70% of what men do" is thrown around a lot and it has some validity in some fields and much less validity in most fields. There are obvious jobs that woman get paid less in, but there are also jobs we earn a hell of a lot more in. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I haven't seen it.

3) Cultural or traditional practices - I am not sure what is trying to be conveyed here - maybe there is more validity to this then I first thought but I would need a thorough understanding of what they mean exactly.

4) Sexual violence and harassment - just the fact that they lumped these two together shows a bias. Almost all women have endured some kind of sexual harassment but actual violence is another matter altogether. Maybe people's definition of violence is different but to me its almost always spousal abuse and that deserves it's own category.

5) Non-Sexual violence - again I think spousal or domestic abuse could have been highlighted as its own category. I would need to see numbers I guess. This is probably more of an issue in states of the US I refuse to visit, the bible belt and other red states.

6) Human trafficking - I don't really know anything about this so I can't say.

Maybe I just live in a bubble, a liberal state without many of these issues so front and center. But I fail to see how this isn't a biased study that supplies no foundation other than opinion. No data to speak of at all. What kind of reporting is that? AS Trump would say "Terrible, low energy"

 

[Victorian Gray]

In case anyone is interested. Here's the original report

http://poll2018.trust.org/

and the direct link to the methodology section (apparently you can even request the polling data)

http://poll2018.trust.org/methodology/

 

[Commodus]

Are you basing that off data which show higher prevalence of violence against women in the US as compared to other developed countries? If so, please link it. You may well be correct but I can't find data to confirm or refute what you're saying. Closest I can come:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...n-the-u-k-compares-to-stats-across-the-world/

I have to admit that it's more based on general crime rates than anything: it's likely that women will be safer in Canada and other countries simply because overall crime rates are lower. The data you cited kinda supports this, although the stats Wikipedia references for rape statistics (sadly ending around 2010) suggest that South Africa has a disproportionately very high sexual assault rate. That by itself would make me question the findings, since I doubt there's been a dramatic change in the ratios over eight years.

 

[jackstar7]

The fuck is the point of this thread?

 

[ch33zw1z]

The fuck is the point of this thread?

General concern for USA's sudden malaise onset.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The fuck is the point of this thread?

Concern.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have to admit that it's more based on general crime rates than anything: it's likely that women will be safer in Canada and other countries simply because overall crime rates are lower. The data you cited kinda supports this, although the stats Wikipedia references for rape statistics (sadly ending around 2010) suggest that South Africa has a disproportionately very high sexual assault rate. That by itself would make me question the findings, since I doubt there's been a dramatic change in the ratios over eight years.

General crime rate probably isn't the best measure. Like I said to another poster above, if we're talking about danger to women, then a danger which presents equally to both genders wouldn't seem to capture the issue properly. Worse yet, most victims of violent crime are actually men in the US, or at least for homicides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender

 

[Moonbeam]

It does have the Pussy-Grabber in Chief.