Soy Reminder that the EU hid the percentage of women assaulted by other women in its 2024 report after posting it in the 2014 one

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Damn, I sure wonder why they are trying to hide this data.

Some of you may remember the thread I made about the EU's Violence Against Women report from 2014, which included data on non-sexual attacks by non-partners (as in, having somebody you don't know randomly attack you) including another woman, either as the sole perpetrator or in a mixed-gender group of attackers, in one third of all such cases.

[Official EU survey from 2014] 33% of non-partner physical assaults on women include other women as perpetrators

"Muh men so scary, muh men are so dangerous, muh we need women-only spaces everywhere to protect us from scary men, muh all women are scared of all men so much men can't even imagine it, muh any men even raising their voices is terrifying to all...

incels.is

Well, in late 2024 we got a new version of that report (which for example @Grodd has already posted about here), and surpsise, it completely ommitted this data.

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/eu-gender_based_violence_survey_key_results.pdf

You can check it out for yourselves, literally at no point does it even approach the subject of the gender of the people attacking those women, nor the various types of those attacks and assaults. The data is sort of still there on Eurostat's website, but requires you to know what you are looking for and do some of your own calculations since it's divided between different tables.

This table:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/gbv_npv_perp/default/table?lang=en&category=livcon.gbv.gbv_npv

Has the data for different perpetrators, but only that data and it doesn't differentiate between sexual and non-sexual violence, meaning that you have to look at the tables from the report like this one:

To see that non-sexual physical violence is only about 35% of that, and since the 2014 report states that women are only behind 1% of said sexual violence (which agrees with the various studies which find that almost all sexual violence against women, around 98 to 99%, is perpetrated by men, while it's not so one-sided when it comes to sexual violence against men with about 80% of it done by women and 20% by other men) means that if you want to see the 2024 numbers for non-sexual physical assaults, you need to look at the first table and substract 65% from the reported male violence, which gives us 6.4% vs 3.7%, which is pretty close to what the 2014 report found, with female perpetrators taking part in 33% of physical and non-sexual attacks on women, and actually even higher.

 

[PersonalityChad]

The EU is gigacucked so this is not surprising

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

It’s almost like they don’t want anyone to see the bigger picture. If they admit women are involved in violence, it would ruin the whole "men are always dangerous" narrative they’ve been selling. They’ll do anything to keep their agenda intact.

 

[DarkStar]

Ofc, notice how they changed it right as general "manosphere" views became popular?

This is why I say, it's also useful to look at "older" data/stuff.

It’s almost like they don’t want anyone to see the bigger picture. If they admit women are involved in violence, it would ruin the whole "men are always dangerous" narrative they’ve been selling. They’ll do anything to keep their agenda intact.

 

[Kamanbert]

As men we have a propensity for evil just as we do for goodness, stats show that men are much more likely to kill and all, yes, but also much more likely to save a total stranger. I don't think that's something we can ever change, just see how stubborn those stats are in each and every country.

We can also observe that men - with equal invariability - get the shit end of the stick like being homeless more often. But, again, due to the stubbornness of stats, nothing indicates that it's something we can change.

And yet everyone insists so much on politically gendering those questions whether it's feminists or MRA's, but what if men and women were simply inherently different ? If it really is so, and a lot of things indicate it to be so, then women are at fault for demonizing men for negative traits outside of their control, especially when these traits are 1) incarnated by a tiny minority and 2) not always in men's favor ; as i explained, they also come in the form of pure suffering like homelessness.

There's evidently a factor of comorbidity here : statistically i'd expect more a mentally ill homeless man than a rich, mentally sane man to be dangerous. So those things - dangerosity and misery, "oppression" and despondency - ofter intertwine, therefore gendering male violence and coating it in some oppressive narrative is a dehumanizing absurdity.

"Not all men but always a man" ressembles a well known anti immigration sentence in my country, which is word for word "it's always the same people (doing bad stuff)". And yet we all know that most women would never agree with it, especially the most vocal left leaning ones, a contradiction that by the way has been rightfully pointed out during the man vs bear polemic : if you replaced "a man" with "a black man" you'd instantly get different responses.

So there's no basis at all to demonize men outside from a lack of grace towards men/their flaws and man hate : if so many women are so keen to do it then they shouldn't be hypocrites by still trying to bond with men or have baby boys.

 

[Kamanbert]

To hell with those assholes saying that we should take insults and the criminalization of our sex like good boys. Or those justifying some chick crossing the road in broad daylight just to avoid me. It happened to me two days ago and i felt like shit, i saw her getting back to the other side once she bypassed me, it's totally mental dude. In broad daylight and there even were other people. God knows how much they brainwashed women with this incessant propaganda. I cant believe women always perceived men so negatively and i truly doubt it, i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Kamanbert]

i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

Again when you take the man vs bear stuff, and a simple change like "a man" vs "a black man" completely turns the tables, then it's proof that women are simply extremely suggestible to propaganda.

 

[Grodd]

Good thread and Society will still blame Incels for all of this

 

[_meh]

It’s almost like they don’t want anyone to see the bigger picture. If they admit women are involved in violence, it would ruin the whole "men are always dangerous" narrative they’ve been selling. They’ll do anything to keep their agenda intact.

 

[_meh]

There are many women in bisexual/lesbian relationships too.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

There are many women in bisexual/lesbian relationships too.

True, though I guess the violence in those would've been included in the partner violence part of that report.