And most children are abused by a family member or person in the families trust. And most murders (male and female) are perpetrated by someone known to the victim.

That is not a gender statistic, it is proof that for most people to hate enough to harm, they must know the subject of their hatred well.



As I said earlier on many occassions, with men being unwilling to come forward and deal with the stigma of their abuse in official channels, statistics are pointless, (Indeed, statistics in general are one of the most malleable and misleading forms of information you can rely upon), however, seeing as you set such faith in them, care to back up your above claim with some?

I don't dispute the relationship between attacker and target, indeed, it wouldn't be any news to me that the number of males attacked by those who they knew was also high, especially in the domestic situation. However, my question was more about whether an attacker, such as a robber, used different techniques against female/male targets. Obviously, in many cases they would, even using the threat of sexual attack. But how else might the tactics differ? Different striking area perhaps (is it common to try to kick a girl in the crotch as it is to a male?), are attackers less likely to attack a male face on?

I have known several people (male and female) attacked or mugged and often the attack is simply steamrollering into someone, knocking them over and running with their bag... mind you, I imagine this is more useful on a female carrying a handbag (purse, to Americans), but I could be wrong.

Crimes of violence (robbery, rape, sexual assault, simple assault, aggravated assault)

male victims: 49% non-stranger, 42.4 strangers, 6.7% unknown
female victims: 69.8% non-stranger, 26.6% strangers, 3.6% unknown

Table 43a, Personal crimes of violence, 2008, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept of Justice.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0802.pdf

Homicides

male victims: 46.1% non-stranger, 15.5% stranger, 37.4% unknown
female victims: 63.6% non-stranger, 8.7% stranger, 27.6% unknown

of the female victims killed by non-strangers 30% are intimate relationships (spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend) while only 5% of male victims were killed by intimates.

of the male victims killed by non-strangers 29.4% are killed by friend\acquaintance.

FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm

So the simple response to 'have you statistics to back upthe above statement' is a simple 'No'.

Didnt think so.

Cord,

Your disdain and sarcasm doesn't particularly contribute to a meaningful discussion. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong by insightful comments and well-thought-out arguments, though.

Generally when someone prefaces a statement with the words "I believe" it is understood to be an opinion rather than a statement of fact which is backed up with statistics. Which is why I thought you must have meant the stats on the facts I posted, which I have now provided.

But I'll see what I can come up with re: the robbery scenario.

There seem to be three different areas of discussion that are possible here:

1. Are there gender differences in the motivations of choosing a target and in the goal of an attack?

2. Are there gender differences responses (natural or trained) of the target during an attack?

3. Are there gender differences in the optimal response of a target during an attack?

I had assumed it was the second two. I note we haven't really looked at female/female fighting, which is often a lot nastier. Indeed, I think females often use other weapons and targets than men (scratching, pulling hair, screaming, stilletoe shoes etc)

Men use weapons of convenience too; if society dictated that they had long nails and long hair and wore high heels, there'd be more male scratching, hair pulling etc. Ask a guy with a ponytail whether he's ever had his hair yanked by another guy in a fight.

NO! It never happens... Show me a Steven Seagull film where he gets his hair pulled!