In an incredible display of self absorption and statistic skewing, Emma Watson, the actress and feminist associated with the HeforShe Campaign has stated that more lives were loss due to gender discrimination and violence against women, than in all of the wars of the twentieth century combined, including the second world war, the most deadly conflict the human species has ever endured, killing an estimated 60 million people. The article titled Emma Watson: More lives are lost due to gender discrimination than in all 20th century wars gives the details (emphasis mine):

Violence against women resulted in more deaths than all the wars and conflicts of the past century combined, according to actress Emma Watson. As part of her work as an United Nations Women Goodwill ambassador, Watson recently launched a feminist book club, Our Shared Self, and spoke with feminist icon Gloria Steinem in London. Beyond revelations about Watson’s similarity to Hermione, her new hairdo and her research into female sexual pleasure, the Harry Potter star also shared a statistic that “blindsided” her from the book, Sex & World Peace. (“The two things we want, right?” quipped Steinem.) “There are now 101.3 men to every 100 women on the planet. So women are no longer half of humanity,” Watson said on Feb. 24. “I’m quoting the book here but it says, ‘More lives are lost from violence against women, sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, suicide, egregious maternal mortality, and other sex-linked causes than were lost during all of the wars and civil strife of 20th century.’ “

Unreal, Sex selective abortion…really? In the united states the vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester, 91% of the 1.6 million annual abortions to be exact, the trend is similar throughout the west and probably world wide unless theres some epidemic of late term abortions that I’m unaware of, yet the gender of an embryo isnt testable until at least the sixteenth week of pregnancy. Meaning that most abortions happen before the gender is even known.

Suicide? Check the WORLDWIDE trend of men killing themselves approximately four times as much as women, Check the millions upon millions of men that died in wars they were drafted in that women would never… ever, have to fight in. I invite you Emma Watson to watch the video below that gives you an idea of how many male soldiers perished in WW2 alone, pay close attention to the battle of Stalingrad where over a million men perished in this single battle alone.

The article continues.

“So from this perspective,” she continued, “The greatest security dilemma then is systematic, social devaluation of female life. I’d never come across a statistic like this. I had not understood that we were literally affecting the balance of the population of the world.” That’s a startling statistic, and we wondered if it was grounded in fact. Looking at the available data, Watson has a point that the devaluation of female life leads to a staggering amount of lost lives. However, it’s not clear that those lost lives are higher than the number of war and conflict deaths in the 20th century. The numbers are comparable, but some estimates find the number of war deaths as slightly higher. The comparison We didn’t hear back from Watson or UN Women, but we did speak withSex & World Peace’s author, Valerie Hudson, who’s a professor of international affairs at Texas A&M University. Hudson walked us through how she crunched the numbers and shared a chart from her 2009 study comparing the deaths due to conflict and deaths due to sex-selective causes: Hudson told us she tallied up the death tolls of 53 wars, conflicts and authoritarian regimes for a total of 152.75 million lives. She then compared that number to the number of “missing women.” This concept, developed by Nobel-winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen in 1990s, uses abnormal male-to-female ratios to determine how many women would be alive in a specific year or time period if they weren’t aborted, neglected or victims of inequality.

A cursory glance at the methodology for how they calculate these “missing women” exposes the bullshit fairly quickly.

Women outnumber men substantially in Europe, the US, and Japan, where, despite the persistence of various types of bias against women (men having distinct advantages in higher education, job specialization, and promotion to senior executive positions, for example), women suffer little discrimination in basic nutrition and health care. The greater number of women in these countries is partly the result of social and environmental differences that increase mortality among men, such as a higher likelihood that men will die from violence, for example, and from diseases related to smoking. But even after these are taken into account, the longer lifetimes enjoyed by women given similar care appear to relate to the biological advantages that women have over men in resisting disease. Whether the higher frequency of male births over female births has evolutionary links to this potentially greater survival rate among women is a question of some interest in itself. Women seem to have lower death rates than men at most ages whenever they get roughly similar treatment in matters of life and death.

The fate of women is quite different in most of Asia and North Africa. In these places the failure to give women medical care similar to what men get and to provide them with comparable food and social services results in fewer women surviving than would be the case if they had equal care. In India, for example, except in the period immediately following birth, the death rate is higher for women than for men fairly consistently in all age groups until the late thirties. This relates to higher rates of disease from which women suffer, and ultimately to the relative neglect of females, especially in health care and medical attention. Similar neglect of women vis-à-vis men can be seen also in many other parts of the world. The result is a lower proportion of women than would be the case if they had equal care—in most of Asia and North Africa, and to a lesser extent Latin America. This pattern is not uniform in all parts of the third world, however. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, ravaged as it is by extreme poverty, hunger, and famine, has a substantial excess rather than deficit of women, the ratio of women to men being around 1.02. The “third world” in this matter is not a useful category, because it is so diverse. Even within Asia, which has the lowest proportion of women in the world, Southeast Asia and East Asia (apart from China) have a ratio of women to men that is slightly higher than one to one (around 1.01). Indeed, sharp diversities also exist within particular regions—sometimes even within a particular country. For example, the ratio of women to men in the Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, which happen to be among the country’s richest, is a remarkably low 0.86, while the state of Kerala in southwestern India has a ratio higher than 1.03, similar to that in Europe, North America, and Japan. To get an idea of the numbers of people involved in the different ratios of women to men, we can estimate the number of “missing women” in a country, say, China or India, by calculating the number of extra women who would have been in China or India if these countries had the same ratio of women to men as obtain in areas of the world in which they receive similar care.

So basically, in areas where extreme poverty is present, where both men and women are dying as a result of poverty in large numbers, the deaths of females that perish as a result of living in poverty is being counted as violence against women, and being tallied along the deaths of men that are violently killed in war…what in incredible feat of concentrated bullshit. this is all I can stomach gentlemen, I’ll let you guys pick this apart.