|
|
|
Empowering
Men:
|
Sex, Lies &
Feminism by Peter Zohrab
Chapter 9: Lies, Damned Lies & U. N.
Statistics |
|
|
1999 Version
1. Introduction
Several chapters in this book give instances of how the Feminist
research industry has exploited its control over gender research by
publishing and disseminating false and misleading statistics. This may
be a combination of Feminist incompetence, ruthless Feminist disregard
for the truth and the cowardly reluctance of many non-Feminst academics
to enquire too closely into the doings of the Feminists, in case they
damaged their careers.
Another aspect of the statistics war is that it is sometimes hard
to get hold of statistics that would support a pro-male view of some
aspect of social life, because the feminised bureaucracies in Western
countries don't see the need to collect or publish statistics on the
issues concerned. For example, I once wrote to the New Zealand Police
asking for details of their prosecutions for false complaints, according
to the category of crime involved. They replied that they didn't keep
such statistics, they wouldn't compile them for me, and they wouldn't
let me go through their files to compile them myself. On another occasion,
I wrote to the New Zealand Minister for the Courts, asking for statistics
on how often fathers got custody of their children in the family Court,
and I received a similarly negative answer.
"Unfortunately," writes Thomas (1993, page 145),"the
numbers dry up once men stop being the bad guys."
In fact, the situation can get worse than statistics merely not being
available -- statistics that were previously available can cease to
be available ! For example, the Statistical Abstract of the United States
used to publish a breakdown by sex of perpetrators of Child maltreatment
-- but some Feminist in the US bureaucracy (who might have got her job
through Affirmative Action, for all I know) must have decided that the
world didn't need to know that most perpetrators of Child Maltreatment
are female. So that statistic has not been available for any year since
1986, when 55.9% of perpetrators were female (Statistical Abstract of
the United States 1992, Table No. 301).
2. The GDI and the GEM
From the United Nations Women's Conferences that have taken place,
and from documents such as the United Nations Human Development Report
1995, we can see that the Feminists are now well entrenched in the United
Nations. They are engaged in exporting the Western notion of Feminsm
to the rest of the world, using the United Nations as one of their prime
tools.
The above document contains a chapter which is:
"concerned with the measurement of gender inequality by simple
composite indices based on readily available data." (page 73).
The two measures that it proposes are the GDI (Gender-related Developement
Index) and the GEM ( Gender Empowerment Measure). The GDI is purely
an adaptation of an already existing United Nations index -- the HDI
(Human Development Index). The HDI gives a country a relative development
ranking according to the income, life expectancy, and adult literacy
of their citizens, and according to the numbers of people enrolled in
their education system.
Similarly, the GDI gives countries a relative feminisation ranking
according to the relative male and female income, life expectancy, adult
literacy, and numbers enrolled in educational institutions. Of course,
"life expectancy" is the odd man out here, and it would never have appeared
in a Feminist index of this sort in the normal course of events. But
it is obvious that the Feminists had to win political battles, initially,
to get any sort of Feminist index adopted by the United Nations at all
-- so the obvious tactic was to get in on the back of an existing UN
index.
However, that was only the thin edge of the wedge. At least they
were in! Then they had to deal with the propaganda problem of the life-expectancy
issue -- since, obviously, women outlive men in all but about two countries
in the world. Even that was not good enough for Hilary Clinton, however,
so she made a speech deploring the low female life expectancy in those
two South Asian countries, when she visited them !
The UN Feminists dealt with the life expectancy problem in two ways:
-
First they did a statistical conjuring trick: They set an artificial
maximum life-expectancy for women that was five years greater than
men's, and an equally artificial minimum life-expectancy for women
that was likewise five years greater than men's, -- and then they
proceeded to "adjust" their raw data and make their calculations and
rankings on that basis !! As justification for this cunning ploy,
they cited only two, relatively old works by female writers (Holden
1987 and Waldron 1983). However, Vallin (1995) states:
"For many years now, most authors have agreed that social role
differences between men and women and related factors are the main
cause of their inequality in the face of death" (page 178).
Feminism is about changing the social roles of women and men. If
the difference between men's and women's life expectancies is indeed
the result of their different social roles, then that needs to be allowed
to emerge from the raw statistics, without any devious, unprofessional,
Feminist gerrymandering of any sort.
-
Then the Feminists developed their GEM -- an index which was totally
new, and unpolluted by any inconvenient factors such as life-expectancy.
This measure compares men and women according to the number of seats
held by them in parliament, their proportions in the administrative/managerial
and professional/technical employment categories, and their relative
incomes.
3. Conclusion
All this is dishonest and one-sided. If Masculists had been invited
to participate in this process, we would have had something to say on
issues such as life-expectancy, false accusations, suicide rates, imprisonment
rates, conviction rates, military conscription, death rates in wartime,
health spending, capital assets, circumcision, choice for men, child
custody, Ministries of Men's Affairs, university Departments of Men's
Studies, and so on.
In France, for example1,
men commit suicide three time as often as do women, and male suicides
have increased by 35% since 1974, whereas the female suicide rate has
remained static over that period. There have to be reasons for these
sorts of statistics. Men are not committing suicide in greater numbers
than women because they run Society for their own benefit and oppress
women ! If men were running Society for their own benefit and oppressing
women, then it would be women who would be committing suicide more and
dying at a relatively young age !
2002 Version
CHAPTER 4
LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND U.N. STATISTICS
Introduction
The chapter on the Media University Complex, among others, provides
specific instances of how the Feminist research industry exploits its
control over gender research by publishing and disseminating false and
misleading statistics. Statistics which arise out of an ironic combination
of Feminist incompetence, their ruthless disregard for the truth and
the cowardly reluctance of many non-Feminist academics to inquire too
closely lest they damage their careers.
The only way to counter their propaganda machine is with courage,
persistence, unbiased studies and accurate statistics. Neutralizing
the bad with the good. There are many who have attempted precisely that.
But then comes the hard part – getting the truth past the Feminist-dominated
bureaucrats, booksellers and publishers who suppress or ignore virtually
any data that do not support the Feminist view. For example, I once
wrote to the New Zealand Police asking for details of their prosecutions
for false complaints by category of crime involved. They replied they
didn't keep such statistics and wouldn't compile them for me, nor would
they let me go through their files to compile them myself
On another occasion, I wrote the New Zealand Minister for the Courts
asking for statistics on how often fathers got custody of their children
in the family court, and I received a similarly negative answer. This
negative approach to keeping statistics that are relevant to the needs
of men and fathers was echoed in the following email I received from
Robyn Munro, Planning & Information Unit, National Office, New Zealand
Ministry of Courts, on November 12th, 1999:
In response to your phone call earlier today: Unfortunately we are
unable to provide you with detailed information on Custody/Access outcomes
from the Family Courts. We hold numbers of cases processed but no information
on the actual outcomes of those cases. There were 9068 Custody/Access
cases processed nationally in the last financial year. I'm sorry I cannot
help further. The information you seek is not collected on a national
basis & I do not know whether individual courts keep such records
either.
In Britain, the situation is similar:
"Unfortunately, the numbers dry up once men stop being the bad
guys. (Thomas 1993, page 145)."
This goes beyond data being merely unavailable – statistics
previously published are removed from the record! The Statistical Abstract
of the United States, for example, used to publish a breakdown by sex
of perpetrators of child abuse. Once men's rights advocates publicised
this, however, a government bureaucrat decided the world didn't need
to know that most perpetrators of child abuse are female. So 1992 was
the last year they were published. (Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1992, Table No. 301).
The GDI and the GEM
From the United Nations Women's Conferences to documents such as
the United Nations Human Development Report 1995, we can see the Feminists
are now well entrenched in the United Nations. Worse, they are using
the UN to export western Feminism to the rest of the world.
On page 73 of the 1995 Human Development Report, for example, in a
chapter focusing on "the measurement of gender inequality by simple
composite indices based on readily available data," they propose
two measures: the GDI (Gender-related Development Index) and the GEM
(Gender Empowerment Measure). The GDI is purely an adaptation of an
already existing United Nations index – the HDI (Human Development
Index). The HDI gives a country a relative development ranking according
to the income, life expectancy, and adult literacy of their citizens,
and according to the numbers of people enrolled in their education system.
Similarly, the GDI gives countries a feminisation ranking according
to the relative male and female income, life expectancy, adult literacy,
and numbers enrolled in educational institutions. Of course, "life
expectancy" is the odd man out here, and ordinarily Feminists would
never allow it in one of their indexes. But to get the GDI accepted
they had to compromise.
They had to deal with the propaganda problem of the life-expectancy
issue, however, since women outlive men in all but about two countries
in the world. But at least they were in! To draw attention away from
the life expectancy issue, Hillary Clinton made a speech deploring the
lower-than-men life expectancy of women in the two South Asian countries
when she visited them. That set the stage for what they had planned,
next.
First the UN Feminists did a statistical conjuring trick: They set
an artificial maximum life-expectancy for women that was five years
greater than men's, and an equally artificial minimum life-expectancy
for women that was likewise five years greater than men's, then proceeded
to "adjust" their raw data and make their calculations and
rankings on that basis. But aren't the differences relevant? Should
they be hidden by such sleight of hand? As justification for this cunning
ploy, they state:
"There is indeed strong evidence that the maximum potential life
expectancy for women is greater than that for men – given similar
care, including health care and nutritional opportunities."
They cite two relatively old works by female writers (Holden 1987
and Waldron 1983) in this connection. On the same page, they go on to
state:
"Women's higher potential life expectancy is anticipated in demographic
projection as well. For the year 2050, for example, life expectancy
in industrial countries is projected at 87.5 years for women and 82.5
years for men...."
This demonstrates how women don't have to be competent to hold down
a job in a politically correct environment. It is not people's potential
life expectancy that is anticipated by demographic projections, but
their actual life expectancy; after all, social factors such as health
care have played their part! If the aim is to predict the actual course
of events as accurately as humanly possible, no demographer would be
stupid enough to make projections based on potentials.
Moreover, Vallin (1995) takes a contrary view as to the causes of
the difference between men's and women's actual life-expectancy:
"For many years now, most authors have agreed that social role
differences between men and women and related factors are the main cause
of their inequality in the face of death. (page 178)."
If the difference between men's and women's life expectancies is indeed
the result of their different social roles, then the Feminists should
not hide the fact by tampering with the figures. There are some theories
(see Kirkwood, 1999) that women live longer than men because of society's
need to assure the primary caregiver lives long enough to see her children
through to maturity, but this is purely speculative. Particularly as
until the relatively recent development of hygienic practices at the
turn of the 20th century, women died younger than men and the constant
parent was the father.
Next, the UN Feminists developed their Gender Empowerment Measure
(GEM) – a completely new index unpolluted by any inconvenient
facts relating to life-expectancy. This measure compares men and women
according to:
1. the number of seats held by them in parliament;
2. their proportions in the administrative/managerial and professional/technical
employment categories; and
3. their relative incomes.
This index is arbitrary, politically motivated and aimed purely at
demonstrating that women are "oppressed," and therefore deserving
of sympathy and targeted political action and funding. To say GEM is
biased would be an understatement.
Conclusion
The Men's/Fathers' Movement would do well to propose their own GEI
(Gender Empowerment Index), which would compare men and women according
to:
1. their proportion in the national electorate;
2. their proportions in the mass media news and current affairs production,
editorial, and journalistic employment areas;
3. their life-expectancy;
4. their proportions as recipients of sole custody rights on separation
and divorce;
5. the proportion of health and welfare spending that they benefit from
(including single-parent benefits, pensions, research, publicity, prevention
and treatment relating to sex-specific diseases, and visits to General
Practitioners);
6. their proportions in death-rates by suicide;
7. their proportions in the bureaucracy;
8. their proportions in the prison population;
9. their proportions in wartime casualties;
10. their proportions in conscripted armies;
11. their power to determine whether or not their child is aborted;
12. male and female circumcision rates;
13. numbers of academic Men's Studies and Women's Studies departments;
14. presence or absence of Ministries of Men's Affairs and Women's Affairs.
Consider France, where men commit suicide three time as often as do
women, and male suicides have increased by 35% since 1974 while the
female suicide rate has remained static over that period.1 Men are not
committing suicide in greater numbers than women because they run society
for their own benefit and oppress women! If that were the case, women
would be committing suicide more and dying at a relatively younger age.
The Feminist research industry has exploited its virtual monopoly
of gender research by publishing and disseminating statistics tailored
to its own political goals. It is hard to get hold of statistics that
support pro-male views because the Feminist-dominated bureaucracies
in western countries see no need to collect or publish statistics on
such issues. Additionally, the Feminist-dominated universities are afraid
to research such topics – indeed, university ethics committees
often act as filters to prevent pro-male research.
It's an information war and the Men's/Fathers' movement must see knowledge
and data as weapons of mass instruction. We must, therefore, mount siege
against their lies, bomb the media with salvo upon salvo of facts until
their ears ring with the truth, and storm the arsenals where these weapons
are stored – the universities and government bureaucracies. No
more lies, no more half-truths, no more witchhunts.
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
15 August 2015 |
|
|
|
|
