NCFM NOTE: the feminist myths busting article below comes from Tumblr. Thanks to NCFM member Greg Andresen for sending it to NCFM . Tumblr is a “site Dedicated to debunking SJ myths and encouraging open, logical, factual and relevant discussion. This blog deals regularly with triggering material such as rape, domestic violence, homo/transphobia, and other nasty things. Tread carefully.” This is a superb article.

Catapultam Habeo – We’ve all seen infographics (should that be…

By Unnamed Tumblr,

We’ve all seen infographics (should that be “infauxgraphics”?) like the one above that include various “facts” about the plight of women and girls presented as global issues. The problem with these is two-fold: 1) they are rarely, if ever, global problems, and 2) many of the “facts” are misrepresented or outright fabricated.

Let’s call it what it is. These aren’t “facts”, they’re factoids. More accurately, though, they are Talking Points intended to guide the viewer into a specific train of thought that will outrage, confuse and overwhelm them — thereby ensuring that the “correct” conclusion is made about these problems. Have you ever seen (or heard) a talking point that didn’t obfuscate the facts, even just a little? Thought not.

“Two thirds of the children denied school are girls“

The United Nations Girl’s Education Initiative in their efforts for “Global Prosperity” (their Millennium Goals for 2015) quotes this statistic specific to the experience of girls / young women in third-world nations. The “Did You Know?” statement directly before this one says, “In the least developed countries nearly twice as many women over age 15 are illiterate compared to men. (Source: UNFPA)” (emphasis added). UNESCO supports this claim, finding in 2008 that of 796 M adults unable to read and write (illiterate) globally, 510 M were women — but it is also much clearer in indicating that sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia are most affected by this. In fact, those two areas alone account for 75% of all illiterate adults worldwide. The reason this is relevant is simple: these countries also have the greatest disparity between male and female access to schooling, meaning that an even greater majority of the global disparity in education access is created by a very small number of countries.

There is also a high correlation between education enrollment (girls as % of boys from 2007 – 2010), education spending (as % of GDP), and female literacy (% – 2009) in many of those affected countries. Some examples from the World Bank are:

Bangladesh — unreported, 8.8 (2009), 77

Chad — 70 – 73, 9.3 (2010), 39

Congo (Dem. Rep.) — 82 – 87, 5.2 (2010), 62

Yemen — 81 – 82, unreported, 72

USA — 100, 22.4, 100 (assumed)

In the above examples, lack of spending on education has a compounding negative effect on already lower enrollment; both access to education and education spending overall have an effect on eventual literacy and their effects are seen to be cumulative.

While it’s important to remember that education for all children is an important goal, it is incorrect to expand the experience of one sex (girls) of children in a specific category of nations to a global problem as it is primarily isolated to African and other under-developed nations. By comparison, developed nations — the Americas, Europe, and most of Asia — had literacy rates at or above 90%. Although no data was collected for the U.S., Canada, Australia, and some European countries, it is safe to assume that literacy is also at or above 90% for these regions. However, this factoid implies that a) this is a global phenomenon, and b) its wording gives no frame of reference for the total of all children that are denied education: 2/3 of 1 M is vastly more significant than 2/3 of 6. As a result, it frames the discussion in such a way that we might conclude that 2/3 of all girls are denied education globally. UNESCO’s figures from above represent 11.37% (796 / 7000 M) of the total global population or 14.58% (510 / 3500 M) of all women (which is a far cry from the 66% that our friendly factoid implies). Education — in general — is a problem in those countries identified by UNESCO.

Now, before we start getting messages from the SJW Intelligentsia “informing” us that access to education and (il) literacy are not the same thing, we already know that. What we also know is that access to education is a fairly good predictor of whether someone will end up being able to read and write. We also realize that it’s no guarantee, at least given some of the appalling butchery of written language that we witness on a daily basis here on Tumblr.

We, of course, could have a discussion about access to education to both boys and girls in underdeveloped countries or repressive political climates. We could discuss that women will outpace men in post-secondary education by 2020. We could discuss that “education” in universities and colleges is valued more highly than that attained in apprenticeship, trades, or life experience — although we need trades-persons, we could do with far less graduates with a major in “Literary Critique of Post-14th Century Feminist Writers” or yet another graduate dissertation on whether Shakespeare or Francis Bacon wrote all those plays we had to study. We could have useful discussions like these.

Except, those discussions would derail the whole “Girls Are Important” campaigns designed to impose a view that Educated Girls will save the world — to hell with the boys. I happen to think that producing the most balanced and educated persons is more important than overstating the struggles of one sex over another. But then, I like to think.

Women in Politics – Talking Points 2 & 3

There are several inaccuracies with these statistics including (but as with most feminist statistics, not limited to): in-group bias, democratic nations (parliamentary government) v. non-democratic nations, and political leadership in many of these countries (both non- and democratic).

The concept of in-group bias has been studied and replicated many times since 1991. In essence, it has found that a) women tend to be viewed more favorably than men on a variety of measures, and b) women are up to 4 times more likely to view other women favorably in comparison to men. This means that if more women made themselves available for election in those countries that allow elections, they are more likely to be elected because women make up half the voting population and are proven to vote for other women simply because they’re women.

With regards to women in parliamentary positions globally, the statistic is listed in Women in Parliament in 2010 (pdf). This article focuses on (semi)democratic nations with no indication of relative history of their political processes, the ability of women to vote, or the proportion of women that ran for election. It also makes great pains to applaud many of the nations that have high proportions of women in elected positions to policies of “quotas” without differentiating between the various expressions of quotas in the political process. In essence, quotas (in political terms) fall into three main categories: 1) reserved seats, 2) legal candidacy, and 3) representation in a political party. The first two tend to be required by specific law or a national constitution, while the last is considered voluntary — “We need to get us some more Women up here in the GOP…”. Quotas are one mechanism that can increase the number of female candidates and tend to result in higher number of those women being elected to political positions, but it comes with caveats:

“The use of quotas is increasingly influenced by international recommendations and from cross-country inspiration. It seems important, however, that quotas are not just imposed from above, but rest on grass root mobilization of women and the active participation of women’s organizations. Quotas in themselves do not remove all the other barriers for women’s full citizenship. But under certain conditions electoral gender quotas can lead to historical leaps in women’s political representation.” [emphasis added]

Did you notice the part that rather politely says to women, “Get off your butt, step away from Tumblr, and run for office!!”?

The status of women in positions of female Heads of State is an extension of these factors and a combination of internal political processes specific to democratic countries: i.e. some leaders are elected by the party and become Head of State by virtue of their party receiving a majority of seats, some leaders are elected separate from the party (U.S. electoral college), some leaders are chosen by coalitions of parties. Whether these leaders are women is of no consequence as they can only become the Leader if they are already in a position to be elected to begin with. If women want more parliamentary representation and leaders of nations then they have to encourage more women to run for political positions.

Owning Your Shit makes a valid observation about women in Western Politics, speaking to the types of occupations that women will embrace (logging v. political office):

“Considering the nature of the job and the sacrifices one must make with respect to personal and family life, no one questions the underrepresentation of women in these kinds of positions [logging].

And while political office is very different than cutting down trees for a living, much of the reason women are not flocking to politics in the west is largely due to these same calculations of effort, reward, sacrifice and risk. Being elected to congress may be a more influential, prestigious and financially rewarding position than working in a logging camp, and one that is probably less likely to get you maimed or killed on the job, however, the sacrifices necessary for either job are much the same. Both positions require a great deal of putting work before family, and may mean not being in the same room with your children for weeks at a time.

Moreover, both positions come with enormous risk—not as many trees fall on political candidates as on loggers, but the weight of media scrutiny into one’s life, and the ever-present understanding that all your efforts could well be for naught come election day…these are considerations everyone makes before entering the political sphere. For women more often than for men, the risk and sacrifice of running for office is simply too high. And women cannot get elected to public office if they do not run for public office.”

These women who are whining about not having representation while not actually getting actively involved in any way besides writing a few posts on their blog are assuming that some other woman will come along and take these risks for them. Little do they know that that this other woman is thinking the exact same thing. Change does not happen by complaining about something and expecting someone else to do something about it. Change requires action, not a misleading info-graphic.

If women are truly interested in having more women in positions of political power, then they need to change their attitudes regarding “power” in the sexes. Women need to start acting in ways that are seen as powerful by their larger community: e.g. stop whining about lack of political power and create new solutions that the community finds acceptable, get involved in the political process in some way that is more productive than writing op-eds (i.e. assume the inherent sacrifices, risks, and responsibilities of political action), call both men and women out when they speak garbage.

Women also need to stop treating men as disposable commodities that are useful only when they are fulfilling their gender-assigned roles. The knife cuts both ways. OYS puts it quite well in discussing some of the (secondary) effects of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):

“Men are seen as strong and capable because they must be in our society. The objective Truth is a little different from our perception, though. Men are indeed oppressed and disadvantaged in many ways, and need help and support in many ways, but we don’t see it because no one—especially feminists—is willing to acknowledge it. In this regard, because not only are Men forced to succeed without artificial help or support, but even the weakest, most unsuccessful of men are simply seen as not needing anything from the rest of us, well, we have an impression that Men are strong, capable, have merit, and would be good leaders.

The same gendered perceptions of Men and Women that inform the entirety of VAWA are what tell us all as a society that Men are capable leaders and Women are not.”

Here’s a thought — radical as it sounds. Why don’t we (women, men, and otherwise) start encouraging intelligent, powerful, capable persons to run for political office and then elect them based on those merits? That way we wouldn’t have to concern ourselves about their internal plumbing. I don’t care if our Prime Minister pees standing up or sitting down, as long as whoever that is makes and implements policies that will do the most good for Canadians. I’d also prefer it if our leaders didn’t become hand-puppets for their donors and sycophants, but that’s somewhat like walking into a McDonald’s and asking for a perfect medium-rare strip loin steak; it’s less that they don’t know how to do it and more that they’re fundamentally incapable of understanding the concept.

“One woman dies every 90 seconds in pregnancy or childbirth”

From Amnesty USA, we have this quote:

“Around the world, one woman dies every 90 seconds in pregnancy or childbirth — that’s more than 350,000 women every year. The vast majority of these deaths are preventable.”

Let’s examine a few other facts to put this into perspective. As of writing this response, over 50 million deaths have occurred this year alone — men, women, children. However, there has been a net increase in world population of over 65 million. In a previous post, we’ve already discussed that men and women are equally distributed in global population. That means that the 350,000 deaths quoted above represents about 1.4% of the total female deaths in the world.

Also, the OP of this talking point (or Amnesty US) neglected to distinguish between death during pregnancy or childbirth — neither statistic has reliable global references for the number of deaths during the pregnancy cycle. What has been determined is that although preventable, those conditions that lead to death during pregnancy are not exclusive to under-developed nations: severe bleeding, unsafe abortions, eclampsia, obstructed labour, etc. These are also complications that are much more prevalent in under-developed countries than elsewhere; yet again, it’s not a “Global Problem”, it’s a regional one. As access to general health, contraception, abortion, pre- and ante-natal care, and childcare improves….yes….say it with me….so do positive outcomes of pregnancy and childbirth!!! These are separate issues that encompass a woman’s right to body-autonomy, access to pre- and ante-natal health care, and education surrounding pregnancy. They are not “one issue” that can be reduced to an arbitrary figure as done above. But then, introducing logic vis a vis complex health issues associated with pregnancy wouldn’t drive home that point that some women die during pregnancy or child-birth as well as the talking point. Saints and Sinners preserve us from Logic.

Once again, a more useful discussion would include how archaic and unsanitary healthcare (in these same underdeveloped countries) affects men, women, and children. We could discuss preventable conditions leading to death in the other 98.6 of women alone. We could also discuss those same conditions as they apply to men: heart disease, non-sex-specific cancers, workplace safety, dying because one chose to base-jump from a height of 2500 metres. You know, all the other things that happen when women aren’t pregnant or giving birth to children.

As important as death during pregnancy / childbirth is, it is no more important than all the other causes of death that surround us. It’s a little thing we like to call perspective.

“Domestic Violence causes more death and disability amongst women aged 16-44 than cancer or traffic accidents”

Hunting down the source of this nugget was somewhat difficult as it combines death, disability, cancer and traffic accidents in one factoid — rather sloppy from a statistical viewpoint. Womens Aid Dundalk quotes Amnesty International as the source for this although it is not present on AI’s website. The reason for this is simple: AI has since disavowed it. It’s also another talking point that stresses (and completely misrepresents) the experience of some women, some of the time, in some places.

Now that we have that cleared up, let’s deal with some real numbers as collected by U.S. government agencies concerning leading causes of death and disability in the age group of 16 – 44.

Mortality Causes by Age for Women Ranking (2008 – US CDC) as %:

15 – 19 : Unintentional Injuries (All accidents) – 46.4, Suicide – 9.3, Homicide – 8.3, Cancer 8.0, Heart Disease – 3.5

20 – 24 : UI – 39.4, Su – 8.9, Ho – 8.8, Ca – 7.8, HD – 4.5

25 – 34 : UI – 26.6, Ca – 13.9, HD – 8.5, Su – 8.1, Ho – 5.7

35 – 44 : Ca – 25.1, UI – 16.5, HD – 12.1, Su – 5.5, Stroke – 3.3

For Men we have the following — from the same site:

15 – 19 : UI – 44.0, Ho – 20.2, Su – 14.3, Ca – 4.6, HD – 2.7

20 – 24 : UI – 44.4, Ho – 18.3, Su – 15.1, Ca – 4.1, HD – 3.3

25 – 34 : UI – 37.9, Su – 14.4, Ho – 13.1, HD – 7.3, Ca – 6.0

35 – 44 : UI – 23.7, HD – 16.5, Ca – 11.5, Su – 10.7, Ho – 4.7

You may have noticed that Unintentional Injury(ies) rates highest in all age categories (for both women and men) except women 35-44 where it is the second leading cause of death. The word we have to emphasize here is “unintentional”. This category includes all manners of death that are the result of accidents: e.g. falling through thin ice, a piano dropping on one’s head, and traffic accidents. (In fact, traffic accidents are the leading cause of unintentional injury.) Homicide (defined as assault causing death) is in the top 5 for men in all these age groups, while for women it drops out of the top 5 after age 34. Domestic violence, which is the implied cause of homicide against women, is not given its own category — I’m sure the CDC will get right on that.

The Disability Stats (2005 – US CDC)) for both Women and Men is even more interesting as it shows that the top 5 causes of disability was the same for both women and men. Percentages collected in 2005 for total populations of 26.4 million women and 18.7 million men follow:

Women : Arthritis – 24.3, Back – 16.8, Heart – 5.4, Lung – 4.9, Mental / Emotional – 4.6

Men : Back – 16.9, Arthritis – 11.5, Heart – 8.4, Mental / Emotional – 5.2, Lung – 4.9

Just over 10% received benefits.

All of these conditions have a variety of causes and correlations to other influences: e.g. working condition, environment, stress response, genetics, lifestyle, eating habits, etc. While domestic violence against women or men may exacerbate these conditions, it is incorrect to state that it is a primary cause for them. More specifically, arthritis, heart, and lung diseases (3 of the top 5) don’t really have anything to do with domestic violence/abuse; they are, however, closely linked to genetics and lifestyle choices. Perhaps when the CDC is finished correcting their Mortality Causes Index to include domestic violence, they’ll update their disability protocols too.

We realize that’s an awful lot of numbers for some people to properly digest, but that’s one of the joys of debunking blatant lies and misrepresentations. The long and short of it is that both men and women experience disabling conditions and die for a variety of reasons. Some get a (near) terminal illness (cancer), some develop chronic conditions (arthritis), a fair number are injured (accidents) and may die from those injuries. Sometimes, those experiences can be correlated to domestic violence, but stating that it is more disabling or life-threatening than cancer or traffic accidents is completely and utterly false. It. Is. A. Lie.

Finally (at least for this factoid), women and men are at fairly equal risk of domestic violence, as we’ve already discussed here. You may also notice that the list of greater risk for specific forms of violence is much longer for men than for women.

Erectile Dysfunction Spending

Well if the other five talking points didn’t grab you by the short and curlies, this one is guaranteed to. There are men that would like to enjoy sex but can’t because their equipment isn’t “up” to the task anymore. Apparently this has some relation to the amount of money spent in poor countries on natal health — I’m not sure whether the implied connection confuses me or makes me shudder.

We have Annie Lennox to thank for this nugget; she stated it as part of an interview in May 2011 with The Banter (UK). I may have to re-evaluate my love of the Eurythmics given that she couldn’t be bothered to cite a reference for this statement. Nor was I able to find an independent source — although it’s entirely likely that AI or another “global NGO” is its owner. No matter, as it’s a prime example of “Not Even Wrong”. The amount of spending on anything in the West cannot be meaningfully compared to spending in “poor countries”.

Would it surprise you to know that spending on natal health is astronomically higher in developed countries than that in poorer ones? Would it surprise you to know that spending on ED doesn’t even exist in many or these poorer countries? Would it surprise you to know that spending on ED (a male condition) and Hormone Replacement Therapy (as a treatment for menopause in females) is roughly equal in those countries where both are available? Would it surprise you to know that neither ED nor Menopause have the slightest thing to do with natal and prenatal health? Why? Because both ED and Menopause are conditions that are (generally) experienced by persons that are past child-bearing years. You heard it here first….menopause is a biological signal that a woman’s body is moving beyond child-bearing and ED (while a complex condition) is often the same signal for men.

It’s also true that we, in developed countries, tend to spend far more than our poorer counterparts on cosmetic surgery, dietary supplements (because our general diets are crap), clothing, housing, and entertainment. Where is the general outrage at these things? Hell, people in the U.S. probably spend more on lattes every year than the health budget of half of Africa put together. Why aren’t NGOs working to make sure that there’s a FutureShop, Starbuck’s, or Dr. Fix-Your-Nose on every street corner in these poorer countries? Oh yeah….that’s right….it’s because the economic and general problems of life inherent to those countries are vastly more important than the luxuries that we enjoy in developed countries.

Except, apparently, when one is driving the point home about spending on natal health. Think of the Children!!!!!

It could also be that at the same time we are presented with this talking point, we’re also expected to believe that “For less than the price of a coffee….” we can feed, provide health care, educate, and drastically change the living situation of the entire village of these same children!!!! Does anyone else see the mixed message? If we can feed, clothe, educate, inoculate, and improve the village of a child for $2 / day, does it really matter a hill of beans how much Mr. Developed-Nation is spending on the “upkeep” of his equipment?\

In conclusion, each of these factoids/talking points does present us with a problem that demands some kind of solution — or even a discussion about possible solutions. But….and this is a major BUT….none of them present their problem in a way that is a) global, or b) internally consistent with other related factors. That means that not only is each not about “all apples”, but each one is actually a fruit salad. Keeping with this analogy, when I’m walking down the produce aisle I get rather offended when some helpful clerk directs me to a bucket of raspberries when I’m looking for a pineapple.

The status of education for girls, female political representation, domestic violence, and child-birth are all important issues. However, they are no more or less important that housing, feeding and providing competent health care to those persons — of all genders — that live in the under-developed countries that are the source for these factoids. Nor, should any of these issues be arbitrarily divided along gender lines in order to elevate the plight of girls/women over boys/men. Most of all, these issues should not be appropriated by first-world feminists to justify actions that do nothing to remedy the problems but instead work very hard to make women in the first world more comfortable in their cocoon of privilege than they already are.

Whether intended or not, making these statements — applying them on a global scale through myopic lenses — only serves to reinforce the perception that females are weaker than males, females need the protection of males, and females need special attention. Last I checked, these were all arguments that feminists (the most vocal and public) vehemently deny. They do nothing to increase the living standards of all humans — something that feminists claim to embrace. Of course, we all know that them accepting this would be detrimental to their real objective: self interest.

Honesty, anyone?

_______________________________________

Best Answer – Chosen by Asker

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam – I have a catapult. Give me all your money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head

Source(s): http://www.yuni.com/library/latin_1.html

Feminist myths are everywhere.

Feminist myths by design coerce politicians into giving more money to the Women Industries.