Feminist Lies: The Old and The New
They do so in ways that are difficult for most people to detect. This leaves people convinced that they are truthful and only interested in equality but scratch and sniff and you get a very different odor.
How many times have you heard the phrase that 1.5 million women were victims of domestic violence in the US? Plenty, right? Yes, and guess what? There is research to back up these claims. This research clearly states that they estimate that 1.5 million women were either raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the US. This phrase was spread around the internet far and wide. It was used by advocates to prove women were victims and needed support and services. It was used to show how many men were abusing women. But guess what? The same research said something else that they conveniently omitted. It said that 834,000 men were also victims of the same domestic violence as the women. So this very same research showed that men were about a third of those victimized by an intimate partner. (see image below of text from the survey)
So what did they do here? They simply only told a part of the story. Telling only about female victims and omitting males was meant to shape a narrative and this is what you see them doing over and over again. Omitting important information to make it look like women are victims and men are the problem. This is a form of lying and when it comes to such critical information it is hideous.
This study and the following omissions were in the late 20th century. So have things gotten any better? I don’t think so.
Enter the OECD. Here’s how they describe themselves:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international organisation that works to build better policies for better lives. Our goal is to shape policies that foster prosperity, equality, opportunity and well-being for all.
This organization has been doing reports on gender well being for some time. The latest is the gender well being 2020 report. The report surveys 26 countries and evaluates them on aspects of their gender equalithy. Let’s have a look and see if they are telling the whole story or just a part of it:
This graphic appears early in the presentation and it is a doozy. It claims to show the distance from parity for men and women with the midline running through the middle of the chart equal to 1 and indicating parity between men and women. The farther you are from the line the less parity. The pink below the parity line is men doing better and the blue above is women doing better. Ok. Have a look at the pink balloons. The first says that men are doing better since they work fewer unpaid hours. We will go into more detail on the insanity of that in a later post but notice that it is saying it is a value of .35 which apparently means it is less than one from parity (.65 from parity?) with women, so not so far apart. Next is depressive symptoms where they say that men have fewer depressive symptoms with a value of .67 which again is fairly close to women’s averages. Neither of these seems terribly important nor do they seem to be significantly different from women. Then the next pink balloon is even closer to parity, right up against the line. That one claims that men have an advantage by feeling safer than women. Note that the difference is very small though the chart shows the pink graphic to be some distance from parity. Then comes employment rate which shows men to be slightly more likely to be employed than women. The distance from parity is very small. Then last for the men is earnings where they portray a man’s tiny distance from parity in the amount he earns.
So far these are unremarkable and unconvincing of any significant advatages or disadvantages.
Then comes the crazy stuff.
Note that the first blue balloon showing women’s advantage seems very close to the line of parity. The claim is that women are advantaged by getting more support. Here we see the spin starting. It is not that men need, or are denied, or somehow lack social support. No. It is that women have an advantage in getting more. See how they spin it? This is the beginning of the theme of this chart to never show men being at a disadvantage. Better to simply say that women have an advantage. See how that works? eg men get sick and women don’t, therefore women have an advantage. It’a not that men are disadvantaged somehow… Then comes social interactions which is probably more crazy than the unpaid work category. This balloon claims women have an advantage since they socialize more. How much more? Um, five minutes more a day and this is portrayed by the moderator as women doing “a lot better than men”.
But next it gets a little more serious. The claim is that women have an advantage since they work less paid hours. No, it is not that men are busting their ass and working more paid hours than women, it frames it such that women have an advantage by working less. Really? Note also that the value of 2.3 is considerably higher than the highest male category in its distance from parity and yet it is only slightly elevated. This trend is continued with the next category of deaths of despair where again, women have an advantage of not having committed suicide! This crazy survey sees men’s suicide rate not as a disadvantage for men, no, it sees it as an advantage for women. Got to give them high marks for creativity in hiding men’s hardships. Note too that the value for the balloon is 3.8. This is almost 4 times the value of the largest male category in distance from parity but look at the chart. By looking at the chart it looks like it is very close to parity. This only gets worse with the next category of homicide victims. The value is likely 4.0+ but is hard to tell since the moderators picture blocks out the number. So women are far less likely to be murdered and this is seen as their advantage rather than a disadvantage for men? Holy crap. As an aside, it is worth noting that women tend to feel less safe while men tend to be murdered and assaulted far more. Go figure. Note that each of the female advantages is within the same sized area as the men’s but the men’s degree of distance from parity never exceeded a single digit while the women’s went up to 4.
So the chart does numerous things. One, it fails to address men’s true disadvantages and focuses men’s advantages on insignificant parameters. No mention of the fact that men are routinely genitally mutilated, die in wars, have shorter lives, and die on the job much more often and on and on. Nope, those just got glossed over. Two, it hides the men’s actual disadvantages that are shown by calling them women’s advantages. Lastly it skews the data by failing to have the graph truly represent the distance from parity. I put together a chart that more closely reflects the actual distances they claim:
Just a quick glance at this more accurately portrayed chart begins to tell the beginnings of the actual story. Whether you want to call them women’s advantages or men’s disadvantages they show how far apart we are on some just a few of the important issues.
The sad fact is that we are going backwards in getting the truth out about men’s hardships and difficulties. Groups such as the OECD are free to ignore the pain and hardships of men. We are fighting a tough uphill battle.
The next post will continue exposing the misandrist strategies used by this organization to hide the pain of men.
And so it goes.