This is Kevin Levey's final nail in the coffin of this debate. I place it here as it will NEVER be treated with the same prominence as the articles of Vetten, Rademeyer, Brodie and Africa Check, who have tried every biased move under the sun to elude this check mate position - that white SA women are NOT more likely to be murdered by their (white) partners than by a black outsider. It is also important to know that we did NOT pick this fight. (read round one here)
As they say in Afrikaans - KRY VIR JULLE.
Can we know transfer the right resources to the right places to once and for all, and for the first time, DO SOMETHING POSITIVE ABOUT THE PLIGHT OF MORE DEFENSELESS SOUTH AFRICANS CITIZENS AND CHILDREN.
It's not a question.
"The non-debate of Intimate Femicide and Race – Africa Check vs Hofmeyr, Bridges
After posting my article titled “And the Straw Man’s name is Steve Hofmeyr” which questioned the conclusions reached by Africa Check and company regarding their statement that “the majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners”, I expected some sort of debate between the various parties involved. Instead I received not one word from Africa Check (“Racial scare-mongering in South Africa makes light of women’s murders”), Julian Rademeyer (“Dodgy stats just a means to an end for Hofmeyr, Bridges”) or Thorne Godinho (“The uncomfortable truth about white masculinity”). Instead of debate, all parties proceeded to block me on Twitter. Only one word comes to mind…
“The white right, women's murders and a massacre of statistics”
Instead of a constructive debate, Africa Check’s Lisa Vetten has hit back with the above mentioned article which in my opinion is a poor attempt to wash away the vast amount of evidence against Africa Check’s argument. Their key strategy remains to make use of terms like “white right”, “racially prejudiced”, “massacre of statistics” and “amateur statistics” to instil distrust in those who present well researched statistics that do not support their view. The attack on the Straw Man continues. So once again, I’d like to put it to you, the reader, to put on your objective hats and consider the facts I’m about to present. Once again I’d like to emphasise that this is a response to claims made by Africa Check and Lisa Vetten, and not a “scare-mongering” exercise.
A. “The majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners”
This claim is made by Lisa Vetten in an article published by Africa Check. SHE cites a 2002 report by the Medical Research Council (MRC) that finds that slightly more than half of South African women (14 and over) murdered are murdered by their intimate partners. But she ignores the racial breakdown which clearly shows that white women are least likely to die at the hands of their partners compared to all other races and that more white women are murdered by others than at the hands of their partners. These are facts.
In here latest article, suddenly the racial breakdown is in play and she backtracks on her previous article: “First, the study – which sampled national mortuary data from 1999 - found that in that year white women were killed more often by men other than their intimate partners. In statistical terms 2.8 of every 100 000 white women were killed by their intimate partners while 5.8 out of every 100 000 white women were recorded as having been killed by "others". Second, 80.9% of killers in the "other" category were classed as "African". “. She clearly admits that in the period 1999 to 2002, the majority of white women who were murdered were not murdered by their white male partners. But now she guns for Steve’s statement “white women are likely to be murdered by "unknown black males””
B. “White women are likely to be murdered by "unknown black males””
Firstly she questions the assumption that these “others” are unknown and that they might be “a brother, a father, an uncle, a colleague, a friend or an acquaintance”. Basically what she is saying is that white women who are murdered by people other than their partners may have been murdered by their white uncles, acquaintances, friends etc. Then she rightfully questions the assumption that these “others” kill members of other races in the same ratio:
“That sort of finding can only be made when separate analyses of each group of women is undertaken by perpetrator race. The MRC study did not undertake such analysis so we therefore do not know the racial breakdown of perpetrators per category of women”.
Strangely enough the MRC has this information but it just wasn’t disclosed in the final report. So why does Vetten, who was part of the research team, not use this information to prove Steve Hofmeyr and company wrong? Why plead the 5th? Nevertheless I’m very surprised that she would argue this without first looking at a worst case scenario from Steve Hofmeyr’s point of view.
Worst Case Scenario (Based on MRC stats)
Out of 1,000 women murdered:
· 529 killed by Intimate Partners
· 471 killed by Non-Intimate Partners
· 131 white women killed in total
· 43 white women killed by Intimate Partners
· 88 white women killed by Non-Intimate Partners
Assuming ALL white women’s intimate partners are white men (worst case scenario) and assuming that the 3.1% of white men responsible for Non-Intimate Partners femicide ONLY target white women (worst case scenario) then:
· 43 white women killed by white Intimate Partners
· 15 white women killed by white Non-Intimate Partners (brothers, friends etc)
· A total of 58 of the 131 (44%) white women killed by white men
· The remaining 73 of the 131 (56%) white women are killed by non-white men
What this WORSE CASE SCENARIO demonstrates regarding the 2002 statistics, is that even if white men ONLY kill white women, NEVER killing even a single woman from other race, at best she will be able to say that white women are more likely to be murdered by unknown black and coloured males and her statement that “the majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners” falls flat once again.
C. Women abuse, Intimate Femicide-Suicide and Race
Ironically the issue of race was not first introduced by Hofmeyr and company, it was first introduced by Vetten and her team at the MRC. Besides the excellent study of “Intimate Femicide” which was completed in 2002, the MRC undertook some other fascinating studies around the same period. The first was titled “Men’s Relationships with and the Abuse of Women”, which was about domestic violence against women, and the second titled “Intimate femicide–suicide in South Africa: a cross-sectional study”, which looks at when perpetrators of intimate femicide commit suicide afterwards.
All three of these studies included a looking at the race of victims and perpetrators. Obviously the decision to disaggregate the information into race was a conscious decision and obviously there had to be a reason behind this decision. Whatever the reason, the results came up with the following findings:
· 48% of black men reported abuse
· 22% of white men reported abuse
· 54% of coloured men reported abuse
· 58% of Asian men reported abuse
Factors associated with abusing women which decreased the risk of abuse were identified as post matric education, participation in religion and age (the risk decreased as age of the perpetrator increased) while factors increasing the risk of abuse were identified as drugs, involvement in gangs, previous convictions and violent behaviour. These findings further contrast Vetten’s statement that “The majority of white women are murdered by their white male partners” because this study finds that white men are less prone to domestic abuse, probably due to their access to education financial standing. The assumption that all races were equally honest can be challenged if it’s proven that white males are more likely to lie about domestic abuse. I wonder if the MRC would conduct a study of the honesty of the white South African male in order to dispute their own report.
The study, which was a cross study of the prior research done on Intimate Femicide again stated that “the overall intimate-femicide (IF) rates were found to be lowest among white males”. It had the following results:
· 74.9% of victims of IF were black, 79.7% of victims of IFS were black, 1:1 ratio
· 2.5% of victims of IF were white, 10.2% of victims of IFS were white, 3:9 ratio
· 22% of victims of IF were coloured, 5% of victims of IFS were coloured, 0.21:1 ratio
· 0.7% of victims of IF were Indian, 5% of victims of IFS were Indian, 6.85:1 ratio
The study found that “Suicide among intimate-femicide perpetrators was more likely if the perpetrator was white; employed as a professional or white-collar worker; and owned a legal gun”.
D. It is 2014, not 1999
Vetten says: “Importantly, arguing like it’s 1999 assumes that somehow the violent events of that particular year have remained miraculously preserved in time, creating a kind of template for female homicide that replicates itself identically every year. This is not a plausible assumption. Trends in homicide cannot be established from one year’s worth of data alone but must be discerned in patterns emerging over years. In other words we do not know how representative 1999 was of patterns and trends in female homicide generally and we certainly cannot claim that what was the case in 1999 is still the case fifteen years later in 2014.”
There are two things that Vetten does here: