?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
14 December 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Kevin Myers in racist asshole shocker  
_unhurt_ linked to one of Kevin Myers shit stirring, racist, sexist articles: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/sex-makes-beasts-of-men-and-leaves-women-at-risk-1570477.html (warning, talks about gang rape)

I got curious about the numbers, especially as it looks to me like he's adding 40+13 and getting 63. (40% Afro-Caribbean + 13% Indian sub-continent becoming 63% white in his counter example, or is there 10% some race he hasn't mentioned?) So I did some research.

I found this page: http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/cre/diversity/map/london/index.html (data from 2001)

White population of Greater London: 71%.

Black population of Greater London (including Caribbean, African and other): 11%.

Indian sub-continent origins: either 10% or 12%, depending on what they mean by Asian (Chinese is listed separately).

His stats, if we can trust them, white victims: 60%. Afro-Caribbean perps: 40%. Indian sub-continent perps: 13%.

So white people are actually under-represented as victims: 60% vs 71%.

Indian sub-continent as perps are either fitting in with the general population, or somewhat over-represented: 13% vs 12%/10%. It would be great if someone who knows about race designations in the UK could tell me which I should be using, or someone who knows about stats could tell me how significant the difference is, given we're talking about the perpetrators of only* 100 crimes a year.

Black people as perps: 40% vs 11%. Yes, he's right in this case. Massively over-represented. Nearly 4 times. But again how statistically significant is this? What happens if you break down by socio-economic class? Why does he then imply that black people are quite likely to form violent gangs and be sex criminals when the numbers involved are a drop in the ocean compared to the 783, 000 black people in London?

* When I say only, I mean in a statistics sense. It is an awful, awful crime, and it should be 0 (committed).

Exercises for the reader: Is Kevin Myers a rapist and abuser, or is he superior to his fellow men? Using examples from this article, show that anti-feminists are more likely to be men haters than feminists. Why did he mention Muslims? What else is wrong with this article?

Cross-posted to theladiesloos
 
 
Current Mood: angryangry
 
 
 
Blink: Down with this sort of thingunblinkered on December 14th, 2008 12:47 pm (UTC)
I am *so* glad he's not writing for the IT anymore....that way I don;t stumble upon his drivel by accident when I'm home.

Haven't clicked the link yet, mostly because I'm enjoying my Sunday morning too much... Shall investigate later, though!
a very caring potato: built on rock 'n' rollmollydot on December 14th, 2008 01:17 pm (UTC)
My in-laws get the indo, so I'm actually at greater risk now, as I read the paper there more than I do at my own parents, and we rarely buy a paper ourselves.

But I do always skip over him in the paper. It's only when people online point out things that I find myself unable to resist.
Patron Saint of Women With No Morals ^_^: An Optimist's Guide...drusillamac on December 14th, 2008 02:17 pm (UTC)
That article made me so pissed off. Yes, he condes rape but comparing human sex slave trafficking to gang rape does not help matters. Why do bloody male writers always subscribe to the notion that male sexuality is an uncontrollable beast, needing to be tamed? That is the kind of argument men have been using against women for centuries.

Ethnicity is an issue in that article but rape FULL STOP is a criminal act that does not see much coverage. The number of rape cases that actually end in a conviction are pathetic and shameful on a society that attempts to project equality.

It is the age old black men raping good little white girls rearing it's ugly head. True, if more victims were white it is possible to speculate more media coverage would be awarded. Perhaps it is in "fine" publications such as the Daily Mail.
a very caring potato: angrymollydot on December 14th, 2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
Yes, I think your last paragraph is exactly what he's trying to do. But the numbers just don't match his claims.

And his turned-around, made-up-stats example is complete bollocks. Yeah, if 60% of the victims were black I'd think race was a factor, because only 11% of the population is black. OTOH, I wouldn't think anything of 63% of the perps being white (on its own), because that's in line with the population.
at least 10% Discocuntbiascut on December 15th, 2008 10:53 am (UTC)
Why do bloody male writers always subscribe to the notion that male sexuality is an uncontrollable beast, needing to be tamed?

Anti-feminists: doing misandry so much more effectively than feminists since 1000AD.
a very caring potatomollydot on December 15th, 2008 05:13 pm (UTC)
Feminism: the radical notion that men are grown up, capable people.
undercover-undiscovered-underutilised-underwear_unhurt_ on December 14th, 2008 10:54 pm (UTC)
woo, intelligent analysis! (as opposed to, er. ranting, as in my case).

i am most angered, i think, by the way he's using mock outrage and concern on the behalf of women and girls who have suffered horribly to shore up his vile racist and sexist arguments.

plus he's a hatemongering jackhole, but that brings me back to the ranting!

(it's also making me think about some stuff i've read on american feminist blogs where black and latino women have pointed out that demonising men from their community does not in fact help them in any way with regard to sexual assault OR racism. which, yeah.)
a very caring potato: shockmollydot on December 15th, 2008 12:26 am (UTC)
> most angered

Yeah. I feel like he's doing a bait and switch. The first couple of paragraphs make me think he's actually going to write something fair. I was going "yes, yes, huh? WHAT?!?"