Planned Parenthood Concerned About Suspicious Visits

[setzer777]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

In essence, my problem with such an imbalance is that's its risky - historically, having far more of one gender than the other causes conflict or the rise of oppressive institutions. Perhaps we've grown beyond that, and I'm jumping at shadows. But considering that sexism and the like are still popular around the world, the US included, I think caution here would be prudent.

However, if the balance remains the same, it is a nonissue.

Fair enough.... I find that position very... odd.. but fair enough.

I don't find it that odd. Imagine if we had the technology to select sex before birth - makes sense to me that if someone had preferences in that regard (even if they weren't huge preferences) they might take advantage of that situation. Now given the greater inconvenience of abortion (and potential mental, physical, and social costs associated with it), I might suspect that someone who has a sex-selective abortion might be a sexist asshole. But the general concept doesn't horrify me though.

[mike-l]

So, presumably, you do have a problem with gender specific abortions if it doesn't balance out?

In essence, my problem with such an imbalance is that's its risky - historically, having far more of one gender than the other causes conflict or the rise of oppressive institutions. Perhaps we've grown beyond that, and I'm jumping at shadows. But considering that sexism and the like are still popular around the world, the US included, I think caution here would be prudent.

However, if the balance remains the same, it is a nonissue.

Fair enough.... I find that position very... odd.. but fair enough.

I don't find it that odd. Imagine if we had the technology to select sex before birth - makes sense to me that if someone had preferences in that regard (even if they weren't huge preferences) they might take advantage of that situation. Now given the greater inconvenience of abortion (and potential mental, physical, and social costs associated with it), I might suspect that someone who has a sex-selective abortion might be a sexist asshole. But the general concept doesn't horrify me though.

That position also makes sense to me (though I disagree with it). What I found odd is that gender selection isn't a problem to Griffin, but gender selection leading to population imbalance is a problem.

[setzer777]

Well an imbalance could very likely lead to demonstrable material harm (I'm admittedly not very acquainted with gender-skewed demographics, but my understanding is that it typically causes problems in society). In the absence of wide-spread imbalance, the motive behind aborting doesn't seem to really affect anyone else.

[sardia]

Well an imbalance could very likely lead to demonstrable material harm (I'm admittedly not very acquainted with gender-skewed demographics, but my understanding is that it typically causes problems in society). In the absence of wide-spread imbalance, the motive behind aborting doesn't seem to really affect anyone else.

Countries with excess males or lack of females are concerned with the imbalance. Would you want legions of young adult males with little or no prospects of ever getting laid running around your country? It might lead to violence, emigration, immigration of foreigners or Gasps! homosexuality. Of course, there's little hard data to back up any of these assertions, so it remains political theorycrafting and fears as opposed to any hard science.

[addams]

Well an imbalance could very likely lead to demonstrable material harm (I'm admittedly not very acquainted with gender-skewed demographics, but my understanding is that it typically causes problems in society). In the absence of wide-spread imbalance, the motive behind aborting doesn't seem to really affect anyone else.

Countries with excess males or lack of females are concerned with the imbalance. Would you want legions of young adult males with little or no prospects of ever getting laid running around your country? It might lead to violence, emigration, immigration of foreigners or Gasps! homosexuality. Of course, there's little hard data to back up any of these assertions, so it remains political theorycrafting and fears as opposed to any hard science.

Oh, Good Grief. Every country has legions of young adult males running around with little or nor prospect of getting laid.

Have you ever seen what God does to most of them?
Shall we go through the list?
Acne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acne_vulgaris
Voice change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Vo ... .27s_apple
Stupid, aggressive,
overly self conscious; Can you blame them?
There is all that weird shit that testosterone does to the brain.

The list goes on. Do you want more?
Even God knows.
The Male Fetus does not have an equal chance from conception forward.
I know there are good scientific reasons for this to be true. But; "God did it." is so much easier and funnier.

God did Small Pox, polio, spina bifida, earthquakes, volcanoes, God is not a nice guy. If, God did it, then, the humans that have earned their last name, Sapien. Must step in, if at all possible.

I don't 'get' it. Why do other people care what flavor of child another person has?

We don't need any more people. Right? But; People like to make people. The reasons for THAT are more diverse than the reasons to not make people.

A nation of people with arrested development and power and control issues is what I see. We have more than 6 billion humans on the spaceship, NOW!

We are in no danger of running out of genetic material to make more.

(NO! I did not count them! It would take all day, they keep moving around and they all look alike!)

[The Great Hippo]

Countries with excess males or lack of females are concerned with the imbalance. Would you want legions of young adult males with little or no prospects of ever getting laid running around your country? It might lead to violence, emigration, immigration of foreigners or Gasps! homosexuality. Of course, there's little hard data to back up any of these assertions, so it remains political theorycrafting and fears as opposed to any hard science.

Actually, there is hard data backing up the assertion that larger concentrations of males--without an equivalent concentration of females--leads to a huge upswing in violence. I'm having trouble finding the citations right now (getting ready to leave for work!), but one place to start are studies done of the American frontier--particularly in the case of the California gold rush (large quantities of men going off to search for gold so they could strike it rich).

There's a lot of wishy-washy explanations for why this pattern emerges--lots of males, few females, lots of violence--but the fact that the pattern exists isn't really contested.

[CorruptUser]

You also have to consider why those areas have a lot of men. For the frontier, post-Civil War it was full of ex-cons and ex-confederates, who were trying to start over where they wouldn't be at the bottom again. Australia was established as a place to stick violent criminals. Port towns typically had sailors, which were little more than slaves until the 20th century. It's always a question of how much of the problem with sailors was a result of the system or the result of the type of person forced into becoming a sailor (criminals, people with no family, people too poor to pay their own ransom, kidnapped foreigners).

It isn't the same as if you take Anytown, Statesota and then remove half the women, and see what happens.

[The Great Hippo]

You also have to consider why those areas have a lot of men. For the frontier, post-Civil War it was full of ex-cons and ex-confederates, who were trying to start over where they wouldn't be at the bottom again. Australia was established as a place to stick violent criminals. Port towns typically had sailors, which were little more than slaves until the 20th century. It's always a question of how much of the problem with sailors was a result of the system or the result of the type of person forced into becoming a sailor (criminals, people with no family, people too poor to pay their own ransom, kidnapped foreigners).

The 1849 Gold Rush preceded the Civil War. For less context-heavy examples, though, I'd look at China and their recent problems as a result of an unbalanced male-versus-female population ratio.

Again, this isn't a pattern that's (as far as I'm aware) heavily contested.

[CorruptUser]

Considering that the people in the gold rush were often criminals themselves seeing as they didn't exactly respect the property rights of the guy who originally owned the land, to say nothing of the Amerindians prior...

I'm not contesting that not enough women is a problem. Just that you have to clean up the data before drawing conclusions.

[The Great Hippo]

Considering that the people in the gold rush were often criminals themselves seeing as they didn't exactly respect the property rights of the guy who originally owned the land, to say nothing of the Amerindians prior...

What you talking about? 'Guy who originally owned the land'? Like, one guy? What guy? What land? Most of the goldfields were on US-owned, publically available land. This is part of why the goldrush happened--because there wasn't any one guy who had a claim to it (or the claims were very legally murky).

[addams]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Ech. Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?

Is it the old 'Tree Falling in the Woods' question; Restated?

Is it a predictable system or an unpredictable one?

Spoiler:

Damn it! Its both!

What we do matters! But; Not much.

Butterfly wings.

The right to Lifers are hoping that Jesus will be born, again?
What for? So that they can kill him, again?

There is a bad idea. Right there.

Have you seen people? AHHH!

My God! There is one in the bathroom mirror. Shoot. Ask questions later.

I have some deeply ingrained memes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

I am having a hard time with the text, because, the image is so beautiful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum#damped_pendulum

I am attempting to find something simple enough for me to understand. I think I know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment_%28physics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainmen ... icology%29

O.K. That is a little easier. Whew.

We each have an effect. Abortion? Is this thread about Abortion?

In general or for reasons that are personal? If, you are pregnant, then, you figure out what you want to do about it.

These two kinds of Entrainment become important. Both, if a pregnancy is terminated and, if a pregnancy is taken to term or some other thing happens, because; Other things do happen!

Compassionate care of others must be our mission.

Like butterfly wings. And other stuff. We effect those systems that we are physically near. We do good where we are, if, we can.

Some people are bad. They do bad where they are, if, they can.

Do we need seven pages of Sour Milk to define Good and Bad?

The Rule is: Ask!

God! The things I had to learn. And to what end? What difference does it make? None!

It is all Butterfly Wings and Fields of Flowers.

[cephalopod9]

Could I be more sick to death of "ha! gotcha!" fake journalism propaganda pranks? I almost definitely will be.

The hell are people talking about in here?

[mike-l]

Countries with excess males or lack of females are concerned with the imbalance. Would you want legions of young adult males with little or no prospects of ever getting laid running around your country? It might lead to violence, emigration, immigration of foreigners or Gasps! homosexuality. Of course, there's little hard data to back up any of these assertions, so it remains political theorycrafting and fears as opposed to any hard science.

Actually, there is hard data backing up the assertion that larger concentrations of males--without an equivalent concentration of females--leads to a huge upswing in violence. I'm having trouble finding the citations right now (getting ready to leave for work!), but one place to start are studies done of the American frontier--particularly in the case of the California gold rush (large quantities of men going off to search for gold so they could strike it rich).

There's a lot of wishy-washy explanations for why this pattern emerges--lots of males, few females, lots of violence--but the fact that the pattern exists isn't really contested.

Unfortunately wikipedia didn't include violent crime data on the countries with crazy ratios like the UAE (over 2:1 male to female). But you can see that while there may be a slight uptick in the average, there really doesn't seem to be any correlation.

[Adam H]

You can't tell one way or another from that graph whether there's a correlation. If anything it looks like they are correlated.

More on topic: I'm not too sure why planned parenthood is that concerned about this. A) the only people who are going to care about the resulting propoganda are people that have already made up their against planned parenthood. B) upper management should be interested to see how their different branches handle these sorts of difficult questions. They can treat it as a third-party audit, taken with a liberal grain of salt due to the obvious anti-abortion bias.

[mike-l]

I think there is certainly a sizeable number of people who are in the 'I really don't like abortion, but I don't think it's our place to outlaw it' camp that could be swayed if they thought gender selection was rampant.

[The Great Hippo]

Unfortunately wikipedia didn't include violent crime data on the countries with crazy ratios like the UAE (over 2:1 male to female). But you can see that while there may be a slight uptick in the average, there really doesn't seem to be any correlation.

It's mostly the crazy ratios I'm talking about--at least significantly more crazy than '50-50 with 5% variance'. The example I gave (California during the goldrush of 1849 and a considerable time onward) is a great example of that crazy skew (At some point, I'm pretty sure the population was 10 men for every 1 woman)--and what the consequences of that skew could be.

[Griffin]

Though, yes, context matters, and we most certainly do not have any hard data on that front. Mostly correlations, rather than causations.

It's why I mentioned that I could well have been jumping at shadows.

All I'm concerned about with this sort of thing is whether the end result makes us better or worse off - and restricting a persons right to make decisions about their own body, whatever the reason, inherently leaves us worse off, so the alternative will have to be worse.

Badly skewed gender ratios leading to significant upticks in violence could very well be worse. So its good that the possibility doesn't seem to even be something we need to consider.

[jseah]

Anyone have any data for what happens when the reverse occurs? Ie. more women than men.

We could probably pull data from places that have suffered chronic civil war.

[Qaanol]

An MF Ratio of 50 means a 50:1 ratio of males to females, right? And a homicide rate of 70 means 70% of deaths are homicides? (Sorry, but you really did 833 that one.)

[Dark567]

An MF Ratio of 50 means a 50:1 ratio of males to females, right? And a homicide rate of 70 means 70% of deaths are homicides? (Sorry, but you really did 833 that one.)

Is the homicide ratio really what you would use to determine how many homicides there are? It seems something like homicides per capita would be much better.

[Noc]

Umm.

I would assume that the male-to-female ratio is a percentage (wherein a 50 indicates a 50-50 split), and that the homicide rates are a number of homicides per capita thing. (Per 100,000 people seems to be the number WiIkipedia uses.)

Yes, it could be better labeled, but you are being deliberately obtuse. Stop it.

[Qaanol]

An MF Ratio of 50 means a 50:1 ratio of males to females, right? And a homicide rate of 70 means 70% of deaths are homicides? (Sorry, but you really did 833 that one.)

Is the homicide ratio really what you would use to determine how many homicides there are? It seems something like homicides per capita would be much better.

You are of course entirely correct. I should have known that it meant 70 homicides per capita.

[addams]

jeseah asks, "Anyone have any data for what happens when the reverse occurs? Ie. more women than men."

I don't have the raw data. You can find it.

Look at early Mormon Church history and the reasons for some of the funny rules.

Women tend to enjoy the company of other women. There was a great deal of work to be done. "Many hands make light work"

There does seem to be a stable one man more than one woman thing that happens. The middle east had some of that, too.

Not a good plan for population reduction.
Jack Mormons are cute. I have seen 8-15 brothers and sisters in a remote area of Utah. Damn. They were cute. It was like a box of puppies, only, better.

[mike-l]

It could mean homicides per pi people every e years for all I care. The point was that homicide rate variance is orders of magnitude larger than the correlation between homicides and gender ratios in the sampled countries.

[Dark567]

It could mean homicides per pi people every e years for all I care. The point was that homicide rate variance is orders of magnitude larger than the correlation between homicides and gender ratios in the sampled countries.

I suspect homicides also affect men more than women. There is probably some self-correcting going on. I.e. More men than women->more violence->more men die->less gender imbalance. It would be interesting to see the gender ratio at a younger age, like 15, and compare the amount of unrest, as time naturally kills men off faster then women.

[Iulus Cofield]

That graph doesn't tell me much without accounting for gender ratio by age, since the typically highly skewed towards females after age 65 ratio can disguise a highly skewed towards males 18 to whatever ratio. Nor does it tell me much without covering violence over time, since a gender disparity correlated spike in violence would not necessarily disappear overnight even if the imbalance corrected itself suddenly.

I guess what I'm saying is one graph that doesn't appear to be covering all variables isn't enough to settle the issue for me. I'm not even sure where that graph came from.

The Consequences of High Sex Ratios

...A number of commentators predict that this situation will lead to increased levels of antisocial behavior and violence and will ultimately present a threat to the stability and security of society (31, 45–49).

There is some empirical evidence to fear such a scenario. Gender is a well-established individual-level correlate of crime, and especially violent crime (50). It is a consistent finding across cultures that an overwhelming percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by young, unmarried, low-status males (50–52). In India, a study carried out between 1980 and 1982 showed a strong correlation between homicide rates in individual states across the country and the sex ratio in those states, after controlling for potential confounders such as urbanization and poverty (53). The authors concluded that there was a clear link between sex ratio and violence as a whole, not just violence against women as might be assumed when there is a shortage of females. These analyses were repeated by Hudson and Den Boer (46), who showed that the relationship between sex ratio and murder rates at the level of the Indian state persisted through the late 1990s. In China, young male migrant workers are thought to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of urban crime, especially violent crime. It is reported that migrants account for 50% of all criminal cases in the major receiving cities for migrants, with some cities reporting up to 80% (54).

There is also evidence that, when single young men congregate, the potential for more organized aggression is likely to increase substantially (45, 53). Hudson and Den Boer, in their provocative writings on this subject (45, 46), go further, predicting that these men are likely to be attracted to military or military-type organizations, with the potential to be a trigger for large-scale domestic and international violence. With 40% of the world's population living in China and India, the authors argue that the sex imbalance could impact regional and global security, especially because the surrounding countries of Pakistan, Taiwan, Nepal, and Bangladesh also have high sex ratios.

They go on to discuss sex trafficking, which is something that has been asserted to increase as a result of a skewed towards males ratio, but which there is little to know evidence for, but I digress.

[Triangle_Man]

Just popping in to say that this happened in Canada recently. I figured it was tangibly related to the current discussion.

Also, am I to understand that gender ratios within a country have very little effect on the rates of violent crime among young, unmarried men?

I'm also not surprised by that 'men in groups tend to be more likely to commit violent crime' reference; I'd imagine that this would be related to group mentality and everyone feeding off of everyone's energy and/or testosterone, or something like that...

[CorruptUser]

Considering that the people in the gold rush were often criminals themselves seeing as they didn't exactly respect the property rights of the guy who originally owned the land, to say nothing of the Amerindians prior...

What you talking about? 'Guy who originally owned the land'? Like, one guy? What guy? What land? Most of the goldfields were on US-owned, publically available land. This is part of why the goldrush happened--because there wasn't any one guy who had a claim to it (or the claims were very legally murky).

Sutter's Mill and New Helvetia, read up what happened to the guy's land. Sutter owned pretty much the whole area, but that didn't stop the people who came from simply stealing chunks of it (and reselling to each other); if you spent 3 months and your life savings to travel some place, you aren't taking "fuck off" as an answer.

[The Great Hippo]

Spoilered, since it's off-topic:

Spoiler:

Sutter's Mill and New Helvetia, read up what happened to the guy's land.

His (original) land grant was given to him by Mexican officials. Mexico lost California to the US at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War. The land-grant was hotly contested (you might notice, in the very article you quoted, Sutter talks about seceding and requesting French aid, then quiets down when they talk about turning California into an independent republic), and eventually revoked. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that the ownership of the land was 'legally murky'.

Sutter owned pretty much the whole area

No. According to the Mexican land grant, he owned a little over 100 square miles. The California Gold Rush incorporated a considerably larger area than that (here's a map; Coloma is where Sutter's Mill is--where gold was first discovered--and Sacramento was built on Sutter's land).

This is all besides the point, however. You originally stated that the 49ers were often criminals because they trespassed on some guy's land, and therefore we should assume they'd have a greater predilection for violence. Do you understand the problem, here? First you need to prove that most of the 49ers trespassed on Sutter's land (and that it was his land to start with, and that the trespassers were aware of this, and knowingly breaking the law), then you need to prove that trespassing on Sutter's land serves as a signifier for violence (are trespassers generally violent? In the context of the Gold Rush, were people trespassing on Sutter's land more violent than people who went elsewhere?). If all you had said was 'Well, Hippo, there could have been a lot of mitigating factors that would lead to the 49ers being more violent besides the gender inequality', I would have just nodded my head and gone 'yeah, good point, let's look at some modern examples' and left it at that. Because yeah, maybe there were! But instead, you're doing this incredible reach-around to back up some nonsense assertion and using sloppily attained history to justify it.

Please stop doing this. I hate it when people screw with history. It gives me headaches.

[Iulus Cofield]

Also, am I to understand that gender ratios within a country have very little effect on the rates of violent crime among young, unmarried men?

I'd put it firmly in the Needs More Research camp.

[The Great Hippo]

Also, am I to understand that gender ratios within a country have very little effect on the rates of violent crime among young, unmarried men?

I'm also not surprised by that 'men in groups tend to be more likely to commit violent crime' reference; I'd imagine that this would be related to group mentality and everyone feeding off of everyone's energy and/or testosterone, or something like that...

The thing that I usually hear, and it makes a lot of sense (but I don't know how much science has been put into it), is that when you have equilibrium between the sexes, a lot of unmarried men eventually become married men, or at least men in stable relationships--and men are less likely to be violent when they have a family to think about.

[CorruptUser]

Spoilered, since it's off-topic:

Spoiler:

stuff

This is all besides the point, however. You originally stated that the 49ers were often criminals because they trespassed on some guy's land, and therefore we should assume they'd have a greater predilection for violence. Do you understand the problem, here? First you need to prove that most of the 49ers trespassed on Sutter's land (and that it was his land to start with, and that the trespassers were aware of this, and knowingly breaking the law), then you need to prove that trespassing on Sutter's land serves as a signifier for violence (are trespassers generally violent? In the context of the Gold Rush, were people trespassing on Sutter's land more violent than people who went elsewhere?). If all you had said was 'Well, Hippo, there could have been a lot of mitigating factors that would lead to the 49ers being more violent besides the gender inequality', I would have just nodded my head and gone 'yeah, good point, let's look at some modern examples' and left it at that. Because yeah, maybe there were! But instead, you're doing this incredible reach-around to back up some nonsense assertion and using sloppily attained history to justify it.

Please stop doing this. I hate it when people screw with history. It gives me headaches.

Spoiler:

We are talking about people who apparently had no qualms about kicking the natives off of their land; Sutter is just one incident (I know he wasn't an Amerindian...) Those types of people don't tend to sit around singing kumbaya. Post Civil War, when you had many ex-confeds moving West, these were people who had experienced the deadliest war the US had ever been in. So the history of the West is not a good example to look to. And if you have a problem with people "screwing with history", keep in mind that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between someone screwing and someone unscrewing. Because history is often what people wanted to be recorded rather than what happened.

Look, I'm not saying it's in any way good to have a distorted sex ratio, and I actually agree that if there aren't enough women to go around men will probably be a bit more violent, but I don't think that you can really get any data that isn't polluted by mitigating factors.

[addams]

Also, am I to understand that gender ratios within a country have very little effect on the rates of violent crime among young, unmarried men?

I'm also not surprised by that 'men in groups tend to be more likely to commit violent crime' reference; I'd imagine that this would be related to group mentality and everyone feeding off of everyone's energy and/or testosterone, or something like that...

The thing that I usually hear, and it makes a lot of sense (but I don't know how much science has been put into it), is that when you have equilibrium between the sexes, a lot of unmarried men eventually become married men, or at least men in stable relationships--and men are less likely to be violent when they have a family to think about.

Pfft. What old wives have you been hanging out with?

A violent man with a family will be violent toward his family. Jeeze.

Violent men inside a group of other men may be spurred on to more violence as the other men escalate. This is a human phenomenon. Women do it, too.

Violent men inside groups of other violent men are constrained by fear.
Such a man inside a nuclear family group tends to be the largest and most powerful person in the group; Not constrained by fear.

Men come in lots of flavors. Women, too.

[CorruptUser]

Pfft. What old wives have you been hanging out with?

A violent man with a family will be violent toward his family. Jeeze.

Violent men inside a group of other men may be spurred on to more violence as the other men escalate. This is a human phenomenon. Women do it, too.

Violent men inside groups of other violent men are constrained by fear.
Such a man inside a nuclear family group tends to be the largest and most powerful person in the group; Not constrained by fear.

Men come in lots of flavors. Women, too.

Except that environment can make people more or less <just about any attribute>. It's pretty much well established that reducing poverty reduces the crime rate, but that doesn't mean that the people who would've become criminals have been replaced entirely by different people.

[stevey_frac]

The only thing that the above graph proves is that there are other factors that contribute to the homicide rate OTHER than gender ratio.

Off the top of my head, socioeconomic conditions will play a huge roll, as will how differently homicides are reported from region to region. That doesn't mean that if you skew the gender ratio, that things WON'T get worse. It really only means a bunch of well off blokes in <Insert Affluent First Word Country> are less likely to become violent, than a bunch of sexually frustrated, starving young men in <Insert Crappy Socio-Economic Situation Here>. This should be given.

[mike-l]

The only thing that the above graph proves is that there are other factors that contribute to the homicide rate OTHER than gender ratio.

Off the top of my head, socioeconomic conditions will play a huge roll, as will how differently homicides are reported from region to region. That doesn't mean that if you skew the gender ratio, that things WON'T get worse..

For sure. But the point was that the scale on which the other factors affect homicide rate completely dwarfs any evident correlation with gender ratio. So if the worry is violent crime, worrying about gender ratio is kind of a waste of time.

[Griffin]

For sure. But the point was that the scale on which the other factors affect homicide rate completely dwarfs any evident correlation with gender ratio. So if the worry is violent crime, worrying about gender ratio is kind of a waste of time.

Unless, of course, you're in one of the valleys. And the graph is unsources, AND the axes aren't labeled in an informative way, so we can't even trust it.

It is literally zero evidence for anything.

And even then, none of the gender imbalances described were terribly extreme.

[stevey_frac]

The only thing that the above graph proves is that there are other factors that contribute to the homicide rate OTHER than gender ratio.

Off the top of my head, socioeconomic conditions will play a huge roll, as will how differently homicides are reported from region to region. That doesn't mean that if you skew the gender ratio, that things WON'T get worse..

For sure. But the point was that the scale on which the other factors affect homicide rate completely dwarfs any evident correlation with gender ratio. So if the worry is violent crime, worrying about gender ratio is kind of a waste of time.

Actually, it doesn't really show that at all. It shows that on average, with the tiny gender imbalances reported, that gender imbalance isn't the dominate predictor of violent crime.

It doesn't tell you that if you go to a 10:1 male to female ratio that things will go hunky-dorey. Also, if we're going to analyse other causations to death, such as how much of an impact eating this burger will cause to my odds of getting acute early onset colo-rectal cancer, than why should I be satisfied with 'not enough to waste my time on' with this issue?

[Iulus Cofield]

It also doesn't tell us about non-homicide violent crimes or about any correlation between a higher proportion of males to females than 1.06, which is the 15-64 ratio in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. That's probably not high enough to effect anything, since, as mentioned before, the natural ratio at birth is around 1.05. It would be a lot more informative if it covered places like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, or the other few countries with a 15-64 ratio above 1.15.

It does tell us that, even when there is a higher proportion of females to males, homicides can still far exceed the norm if there has been a long civil war followed by international gang activity (El Salvador).

[CorruptUser]

Arabia's sex ratio problem is worse than that because of polygyny. For every extra wife a rich oil sheik has, someone has to go wifeless. Unless the rich guys could convince them to join a cult that gets them to go kill themselves, preferably in a way that benefits the rich guy while he can feign ignorance.