General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLeading cause of death for pregnant women is murder by baby's father
Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 11:35 PM - Edit history (3)
Man tried to hire pizza delivery driver to poison his pregnant girlfriend with ricinPreston Rhoads, 30, of Oklahoma City, is behind bars without bail after trying to convince a friend to act as a pizza delivery driver to poison the unnamed woman he refused and instead turned Rhoads into the police.
Rhoads told the friend he extracted the toxic substance from castor beans after downloading a poison manual from the internet, an affidavit cited by News 9 said. The man told police he got the idea from Breaking Bad.
The former co-worker agreed to meet April 9, and Rhoads revealed that he wanted the other individual to use the poison to kill the unborn fetus, authorities said, according to The Oklahoman.
He then handed the unidentified would-be accomplice a vial of ricin, authorities said.
Rhoads stated that if the girlfriend were to die in the process, Rhoades is okay with the result, the affidavit said, according to the paper.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2612750/Man-tried-hire-pizza-delivery-driver-poison-pregnant-girlfriend-ricin.html#ixzz30tHsgb9B
I found several other recent stories of men who had killed their pregnant girlfriends. Today a Texas man was sentenced to life without parole for killing his pregnant girlfriend. A couple of days ago a man suspected of killing his pregnant girlfriend committed suicide, while the Huffington post covered a story of a man in China who set off a bomb to kill his pregnant girlfriend.
If people are going to insist on viewing women through the most extreme examples of those who "trap" men by getting pregnant, it's only fair to examine the most extreme responses to pregnancy. I, however, do not interpret this to mean all or most men are murderers, anymore than all or most women trick men into getting married. The point is that extremes are just that, extremes. They are not the norm.
Edit: Headline changed on request.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Someone put all of them in the Grand Canyon: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024912407
Still, your point is valid. Most women don't marry to trap men. Most men don't kill pregnant women.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)that is wicked cool ... what they did there.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It seemed sort of related, but I couldn't grab on to much.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)blame my wife for my boo-boo. I've got nothing.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If there's no Grand Canyon mass grave that I can talk about in threads like this, I invoke a subroutine where I just exclaim Bullshit!! every 47 posts or so, ensuring I randomize the recipient each time.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)to play nice.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)In your OP, I was exhorting you to spackle them down in hopes of smoothing out the Grand Canyon. But let them out works for me.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)according to the DU poll, 5% of women on DU DO, or did, or would get pregnant to trap a man into marriage. So 95% do NOT.
On the other side, would 5% of DU men say they would kill their pregnant girlfriend to avoid child support payments? Would 0.5%? Would 0.005%?
Wiki says the rate is either 1.7 per 100,000 live births or perhaps 10.5 per 100,000 live births. The higher rate is still only 0.01%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women
Meaning that more than 99.99% of men do NOT kill their pregnant girlfriends.
95% is by far, "most" but it is not in the same league as 99.99%.
Or put the other way 5% is a LOT more than 0.01%.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)At least two of the five responders were male, and the other three did not have gender indicated in their profile. We don't know that a single woman trapped her husband into marriage by getting pregnant. Trying to pretend that DU poll is scientific or reliable doesn't pass the laugh test. Surely you can do better than that.
Also you do realize that in arguing that women manipulate men into marriage, you are presenting an image of men as weak and lacking the ability to make their own decisions in life. I have never maintained such a negative view of men. It must be sad to think so little of one's entire gender.
There are some obvious solutions to the problem faced by men who feel susceptible to such trapping: 1) take responsibility for your own birth control; 2) don't have sex, or at least don't have sex with manipulative women; and 3) work on developing a strong enough sense of self where they feel empowered to make their own decisions in life. Ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own life choices, be they good or bad. None of us can control another's behavior, but we have full control over how we respond.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)supposed to show that it almost NEVER happens.
My own POV is based on the experience of my older sister doing it (perhaps not on purpose) and it almost happening to my brother.
What that is supposed to imply about my whole gender, I don't know.
It's just an observation about what can happen in life, in male-female relations.
I am not getting all excited about it one way or another.
That would be where you are coming from.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Do we all look a like to you, or something?
If your sister did not "do it" on purpose, she didn't "trap" her husband. Women do get pregnant--the birds and bees and all. To argue that is a manipulative attempt to "trap" a man is pretty cynical, particularly about one's own sister.
Regardless, your sister is not statistical evidence, and your numbers are still bad. I thought you said you had gone to grad school in science?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)in the poll. We've very recently seen people express the idea that not posting an opinion about someone's bad behavior equates to condoning that behavior. If we apply that ridiculous idea to a ridiculous poll, it tells us to pay heed to the disclaimer at the bottom of the poll.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Kinda like menz.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Apparently going out to a diner to indulge a late-night craving for waffles (pregnant ladies have cravings, say what?) was totally a cover for the torrid affair I was having, and I miscarried because of all the wild sex I was having while definitely not eating anything that could possibly absorb maple syrup. And I totally needed to actually die for that totally imaginary betrayal.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Crimes against women are rarely taken seriously.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)and is why women so often don't report. They know police don't take them seriously.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)What is your definition of the word "rarely"? Is 3% rare?
According to these statistics 20% of reported rapists are prosecuted. And almost 40% of those prosecuted get convicted. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
20% isn't really "rare".
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)In fact, this was a case of attempted murder by poisoning.
Besides you missed the headline on the page you linked to:
The majority of sexual assault are not reported to the police (an average of 60% of assaults in the last five years were not reported).1 Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison.
Of course there is the guy in Texas who got 45 days and community service in a rape crisis center. He was one of those prosecutions you boast about. Then the one in Montana who got 30 days for raping an 11 yr old because, the judge argued, she looked mature and seduced him. There is no way for any reasonable person to argue that either rape or domestic battery is treated seriously enough in the justice system. The WHO issues a global report on it as a major health threat affecting women all around the world, including in the industrialized west.
Rapists operate with virtual impunity. So yes, rare is a generous term. The justice system and rape culture more broadly treats women's lives as being entirely without value. The same attitude extends to male rape victims because by being victimized, they are seen as occupying the status of women and are thereby valued less than male victims of other crimes, like robbery or non-sexual assault.
Additionally, only a small percentage of rapes are reported. Victims do not report because they know they will be disbelieved, debased, and vilified by a culture that treats them as less than human.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"crimes against women".
Kinda hard for me to find stats on that, so pick ONE crime.
A 20% prosecution rate does not seem rare, neither does a 50% conviction rate.
And the Montana case? That guy had consensual sex with a 14 year old. Something that would not even be a crime in Germany, Brazil, or Canada pre-2008.
And he's "operating with impunity"? Looks to me like his life was ruined. He lost his job, his home, his wife, his family, etc. That's a long way from impunity.
That site said that 40% were reported.
And 30 day sentences are not the norm, which is why they become big news. Here's a guy getting 16 years. http://www.wlwt.com/news/rapist-sentenced-for-2012-assault-in-loveland/25814682
Here's a guy getting life in prison http://www.wctv.tv/news/courtcases/headlines/Verdict_in_Sexual_Battery_Trial_of_Jake_Butler.html
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)and yes, rapists operate with virtual impunity. The fact that only 3 percent of rapes result in prison terms shows that. Anyone who cares about their fellow citizens and public safety should find that an outrage.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The next time you feel the need to split hairs whether women are victims of relationship violence very frequently or only quite frequently, can you please not do it on a subthread initiated by the story of an attempt on my life?
Thanks kindly.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the difference between "very frequently" and "quite rarely"?
And much as I like you, I still don't think an attempt on your life gives you a free pass to say things like "Crimes against women are rarely taken seriously."
It's horrible what happened to you, but I don't think that is even close to a factual statement.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)So you don't think that's even close to a factual statement? Millions of women around the globe would beg to differ. And please don't rouse yourself to respond with gobbledygook because it won't impress me half as much as it apparently impresses you. You've already lost and just don't realize it.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)so now we are going around the world?
I think it is an absurd statement for the United States.
A waste of time to try to find actual data?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Well, not really. Maybe in a sad way.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)he killed one of my pets. He wrote threatening messages on my wall in permanent marker and stuck knives into the drywall.
He never saw the inside of a courtroom.
My mother's ex crashed his car into hers, doused her car in gasoline while she was trapped inside, and tried to light the whole thing on fire in order to burn her to death. Bystanders intervened and dragged him away. He did do time, but only for violating his parole by leaving Oregon for California. He's since been released. My mother found out only because he started calling her again- nobody thought to warn her.
Law enforcement gives zero shits about women's lives because our society gives zero shits about women's lives.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and does that mean only 8% get convicted, or is my math off? Math isn't my strong suit.
But really, you're talking about a crime where fewer than a quarter of reported rapists are prosecuted, and then fewer than half of that small number are convicted, and you're quibbling over whether that constitutes "rare" or not? If we were talking about another crime with those numbers, would it feel rarer?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and the 80% comes from the fact that 60% are NOT reported. How is a crime that is not reported supposed to be taken seriously by society? You expect the police to arrest and the courts to prosecute when the crime is not reported?
Now, it may be that the whole process of reporting and testifying and trial and cross-examining by defense attorneys is far too daunting.
The statement was made "crimes against women are rarely taken seriously".
I think that is absurd.
And when it says that some crimes are not prosecuted. Well, I wonder if that is not because a plea deal is agreed to and the trial process is avoided.
Google tells me this about rape in Kansas
"Rape by fraud is a level 2 person felony, punishable by 109 to 493 months in prison and a fine of up to $300,000. Otherwise, rape is a level 1 person felony punishable by 147 to 653 months in prison and a fine of up to $300,000."
12 to 54 years in prison looks pretty darned serious to me. Facing the possibility of that, a person charged may agree to a plea that gets them "only" five years in prison (and ten years of parole/probation). Yet somebody who takes that plea will show up as "never went to trial".
And 30% of those arrested for rape end up going to prison.
The other drop, besides the 60% that are not reported is that only 25% of reported rapes lead to an arrest.
What are the explanations for the other 75%? Having no explanation, does that then prove that "crimes against women are rarely taken seriously."
I am saying no, and I am also saying that a 25% arrest rate is not "rare". 1 in 4 is pretty darned common. And a 40% conviction rate is not rare either.
Could statistics be compiled like that for other crimes? It is hard to find a crime, besides homicide which would be as serious as rape. Aggravated assault? Armed robbery? Then with armed robbery, you are gonna get maybe a dozen armed robberies done by the same two people before they finally get caught. What does that do to your statistics? 10 armed robberies reported, and only ONE arrest. That's only a 10% arrest rate.
But what would the same statistics look like for the crime of aggravated assault? We don't know, but we are kinda left with the unstated assumption that 90% of aggravated assaults lead to prison time. Or something like that. Compared to the shocking 3% of rapes. How do we know that more than 1% of aggravated assaults lead to prison time? We don't.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Attempted Murder.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Sissyk
(12,665 posts)flvegan
(64,407 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Not hysteria, just a little-known fact.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)
But let's not get all hysterical or anything.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)righteous indignation = hysteria to The Boyz of DU3
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)but to be totally fair, how many 15-45 year old women generally die of heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes complications, Alzheimers, etc. (i.e. the big killers)?
There's only a handful of things that do kill significant numbers of people in that age range generally- car accidents, murder, suicide, accidental drowning, drug overdose. That's pretty much it.
Maybe 40% of women who die during pregnancy are killed in car crashes. That doesn't mean pregnancy makes women worse drivers.
The really telling statistic would be what percentage of total pregnant women every year are murdered and then compare that to the general population.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Last edited Mon May 5, 2014, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)
That someone counters the argument that many women trap men into marriage by becoming pregnant? That I have demonstrated that some men kill pregnant women? Or that I dare to speak in public at all? Clearly your outrage is gendered, or you would not have chosen the world hysteria.
For at least two thousand years of European history until the late nineteenth century hysteria referred to a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus (from the Greek ὑ??έ?? hysteria "uterus" , such as when a newborn child emerges from the birth canal. The origin of the term hysteria is commonly attributed to Hippocrates, even though the term isn't used in the writings that are collectively known as the Hippocratic corpus.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It reminds me of the Jerry Springer show topics back in the day.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)by the way, there is a typo in the changed headline, it is missing an "r" in one of the words.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)BainsBane
(53,026 posts)to support that, I'd appreciate it. I have to run an errand.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=522184
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson8/
http://www.salon.com/2003/02/27/pregnancy_death/
These stats do not include the number of women who, during pregnancy, are the victims of domestic violence: "According to the Centers for Disease Control, every year in the United States more than 300,000 pregnant women experience some kind of violence involving an intimate partner, and about one-quarter of women country report having been sexually or physically assaulted by a spouse, partner, or boyfriend at some point in their life. Domestic violence is a leading cause of injury to American women between the ages of 15 and 44 and is estimated to be responsible for 20 to 25 percent of hospital emergency room visits by women."
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)http://www.salon.com/2003/02/27/pregnancy_death/
redqueen
(115,103 posts)instead of indifference.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)from having the nerve to speak about it in public, hence being "loud."
redqueen
(115,103 posts)That's the real tragedy here!
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)by manipulative women seeking to "trap" them into marriage. Because what woman doesn't want to be married to a homicidal maniac?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)like a plate of shrimp Perfect.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Response to quinnox (Reply #7)
Major Nikon This message was self-deleted by its author.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This number is relatively low compared to years past because of advances and access to health care for women and because more unwanted pregnancies are being terminated or avoided altogether. There are over 6 million pregnancies in the US in any given year.
650 deaths out of 6.3 million pregnancies yields an incident rate of around 10.3 per 100,000. This number tends to fluctuate depending on whether it's a good or bad year for the flu.
The CDC says the pregnancy-associated homicide ratio was 1.7 per 100,000 live births (live births < number of pregnancies). So if one assumes the number of pregnancies are greater than the number of live births, the homicide ratio for all pregnancies would be some lower number.
Isabelle Horon and Diana Cheng challenged this number due to the way the CDC collects the information, finding rates of 10.5, 7.2, and 3.5 for Maryland, North Carolina, and Massachusetts respectively. So if the CDC number is wrong for the entire nation, it's still pretty difficult to say what the actual number is because not all states report those numbers the same. It's also notable that all of these numbers are for women who can be as much as 1 full year out of pregnancy. Assuming a 9 month full term, 1 year out of pregnancy covers a 33 month period.
So the claim that "Leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder by baby's father" is a bit dubious because it goes far beyond what Horon and Cheng are claiming which are for homicide in general (not just by the father) and women who are within 1 year of pregnancy and not just pregnant.
Putting these numbers in perspective yields some interesting results. You also have to temper these numbers by the fact that homicide rates for the total population and pregnancy rates are both highest for people in their 20's and significantly so. So even if you go with the high number that Horon and Cheng found in Maryland, 10.5 per 100,000, this is still lower than the homicide rate for the total population in the 18-24 age group, which is 13.4 per 100,000. Just being male at any age or race gives you a homicide rate of 8.4 per 100,000, which is almost certainly higher than the nationwide homicide rate for women within 1 year of pregnancy. If you are black at any age, your rate is 24.7. If you are a black male aged 18-24, your rate is 91.
It's also certainly possible that being pregnant doesn't increase your risk factor for homicide. The homicide rate for all women is 2.3. The rate for black females and white females in the 18-24 age group is 12 and 3 respectively.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can certainly see how a few, select individuals would consciously confuse the leading cause of pregnant deaths with hysteria, as it conveniently better validates their own biases via the mechanism of inaccuracy.
(Which ironically enough, may itself be considered hysteria (insert distinction without a difference here). )
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Texasgal
(17,042 posts)Only some...right?
K&R! PROUDLY!!!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)mopinko
(70,070 posts)during their first pregnancy are rife. ask anyone who works in a shelter.
and yeah, as mentioned, men dont always take miscarriages to well either.
or, um, uh, abortions prolly.
NOT ALL HUSBANDS. ABUSERS. IF YOU DONT BEAT YOUR WIFE, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. K?
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)another reason why pregnancy is the most dangerous period in a woman's life.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)this doesn't surprise me at all.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Apologies if you posted it earlier, I didn't notice it when I skimmed the thread.
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)will experience some form of relationship violence before they reach their 18th birthday. So, what percentage of men are abusive and/or rapists?
Half of women killed by their male abusers are killed after they leave.
And, let's not neglect your statistic about murdered pregnant women.
To all those who continue griping about "gender wars" -- perhaps the male naysayers (and the condescending ones) might stand up for survivors, and take the time to vilify abusers rather than feminists?
(A girl can dream...)
BainsBane
(53,026 posts)When a feminist speaks in pulbic about issues related to women. Didn't you hear we are "loud," which gives feminism a bad name?
and I've seen that a DUer used the term "radfem" with impunity, and the DUer who addressed this got a post hidden. VERY telling...
redqueen
(115,103 posts)which is telling in and of itself.
and the tone of these pathetic rebuttals ranges from defensive to "would you like a little cheese with your whine."
I've had enough of the misogyny, the sexism, the condescension, and the patronizing that is sullying this site. Think of what could be accomplished if all that energy were used to address gender inequality and relationship violence!
Ino
(3,366 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)"The point isn't 'ALL men are menaces to women.' The point is "ALL women have been menaced by men.'"
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That is freaking horrible .
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)...are greatly reduced.