International Women’s Day Retrospective, or how to deceive with statistics

14 Mar
Women, this is your life, 2006.*

Women, this is your life, 2006.*

I received this image in an email from someone who knew that I was not a fan of feminism. It shows statistics published for International Women’s Day 2006 by U.K. newspaper The Independent. These statistics appear to show what a terrible lot women in this world face, given the numbers and especially the title: “THIS IS YOUR LIFE (If you are a woman).” The title implies that the article portrays the reality of all women, and that it isn’t a pleasant one.

Those who’ve read the manuscript for my forthcoming book The Mirror know that I recognized the same essential narcissistic personality traits in ardent feminists as those that I lived with for 19 years in the expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits of my ex-wife. To be blunt, ardent feminists suffer from a form of gender narcissism that results in their pathological need for females being victims of males and society to be “true.” These feminists are pathological liars of a specific type.

Let’s take a critical look at some of the statistics, which are obviously feminist influenced.** Context is everything.

A baby girl born in the U.K. will likely live to 81, but if she is born in Swaziland, she is likely to die at 39. This deals with average life expectancies. While sad, a lower life expectancy is to be expected in developing nations. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Country Health System Fact Sheet 2006 – Swaziland,” the life expectancy at birth of a boy (2004) was 36 years and that of girls (2004) was, as advertised, 39 years. Men actually have it worse than women in Swaziland, yet the article deceptively presents the information as women being victims. How can women in Swaziland be used as a proxy for all women? How can you compare female life expectancy rates in the UK and Swaziland, and imply that women are victims in the process?

Women comprise 55% of the world’s population over 60 yrs old and 65% over 80 old. How can women be victims if men die sooner? Common sense would argue the opposite.

70% of the 1.2 billion people living in poverty are women and children. Wow, aren’t we men wicked and uncaring? But why didn’t The Independent compare the number of women living in poverty to the number of men living in poverty? Wouldn’t that have been a relevant comparison? Could it be that nearly as many men as women, if not more, live in poverty?

Women earn less at full-time and part-time jobs than do men. This chestnut has been put to bed in authoritative fashion by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., in one of his excellent books:

Writes Farrell:

Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

(, accessed 14 March 2014)

62% of unpaid family workers are female. What does this mean? Are we talking about mothers here, or friends and relatives that look after children while the mother works? Here we see the traditional maternal role and the supportive nature of feminine socialization (per John Gray, Ph.D.) being exploited to portray women as victims. The natural and generous act of Grandmother taking take of her grandkids for her single mother daughter is twisted to fit the feminist need for women to always be victims.

There are women’s issues that I fully acknowledge and support, such as genuine reproductive health (which does NOT include abortion on demand as a “right”) and the reprehensible practice of female circumcision, to name two. The problem with ardent feminists is that they pathologically need all females, and only females, to be victims. Thus, their “research” and “scholarship” and activism will typically be twisted to make the facts support the “truth” they want to see. They will ignore any contrary fact or evidence.

One recent “Freshly Pressed” post entitled “Bad Feminism” by blogger Claire Lehmann decries these ardent, ideological feminists who ignore research and facts as pop feminists. I encourage you to read Lehmann’s rather lucid post.

There are problems with feminism, obviously. These pop feminists–i.e., radical, ideological, gender, or “gynocentric” feminists–pretty much own feminism and the “women’s movement.” (See Christina Hoff Sommer’s, Ph.D., book Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women.) Much of the entrenched feminist “research” and “theory” is, in effect or in fact, academic fraud; it acts as disinformation. We don’t known what to believe is true, and it disguises the women who are genuinely in need, as well as those men and children who are genuinely in need.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if something is generally held by feminists to be true, it should be considered a lie until proven otherwise. The indirect feminist reign in the English-speaking world is one of lies and manipulation and control, all of which are hallmarks of narcissism. Feminism as it currently exists has nothing to do with genuine issues of equality and  justice.

The sooner it is brought down, the better for us all.

*, accessed 14 March 2014

** I am not suggesting or implying that The Independent attempted to deceive or knowingly acted in improper fashion in publishing what appears to me to be standard feminist tripe. As Lenin stated, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

27 Responses to “International Women’s Day Retrospective, or how to deceive with statistics”

  1. vicbriggs March 14, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

    The answer to all your questions is very straightforward: this is a special edition for international women’s day hence why the statistics illustrate women’s case. You are responding to implications that have not been made. I do not see that anyone is pointing a finger at men and naming them as the cause for the situation at hand. I rather think you are reading between the lines through the prism of your own assessment of the situation: as you have said already, you have an axe to grind when it comes to feminism. Admittedly the image is a little blurry, but I cannot see any reference to women as victims of men. The disparities could be just as easily be attributed to systemic issues and historical developments. I am not sure whether you are familiar with the Independent. If you are not, perhaps it may be worth keeping in mind that it is not a feminist newspaper and the intent you attribute to its editors and publishers is unwarranted.
    All the best,

    • navigator1965 March 14, 2014 at 4:26 pm #

      I disagree, Vic. When taken as a whole, the graphic clearly is designed to provoke sympathy for the plight of women, world-wide. Every figure mentioned is portrayed as being an adversity to women.

      Yet never in recorded history have women had it so good as in modern western society.

      The misleading exploitation of statistics to portray women as victims is a near clinical identifier of ideological (and therefore gender narcissistic) feminism. Witness the bogus yet still influential “research” of feminist Harvard sociologist Lenore Weitzman, whose work continues to wreak harm in the lives of divorced fathers and children across North America (and probably the U.K., too).

      As for statistics concerning women, in many instances the equivalent statistic in men is highly relevant for comparison, with life expectancy being an excellent example.

      I indicated in the 2nd footnote that I was note attributing intent to The Independent, but rather that it has been fed what feminists would like to be commonly held beliefs, per Lenin’s statement of a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.



      • vicbriggs March 14, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

        “When taken as a whole, the graphic clearly is designed to provoke sympathy for the plight of women, world-wide.” I am not sure why provoking sympathy for the plight of women should be a negative thing. I understand your position, but I do think that while there have been many advances in standards of living overall, closing our eyes to remaining problems will not rectify the issues that you mention. It is not a zero sum game. Women are not the enemy, nor are men the enemy. You did not deny the truth of the statistics, but only argued against an implied attack on men and yet I did not see one single line that blamed men for these issues, except for in your own analysis. There is enough space for all concerns to be addressed.
        All the best,

        • navigator1965 March 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm #

          If the plight genuinely exists, then yes, provoking sympathy is reasonable. However, I object to the exploitation of this as part of a broader portrayal of all women as victims, which is the fundamental axiom of feminism, if you will: patriarchy.

          If all women are victims, it is implied that the only people remaining to have victimized them are men. According to the “logic” and practice of feminism, which my children and I have sadly experienced, men cannot ever be considered victims, no matter how badly they are brutalized by women or the Matriarchy.

          The title of my post made clear that it was how the statistics were portrayed that I had issue with. They were presented in a manner that I believe was intended to mislead, although again I do not suggest that The Independent did this. Further, they are collectively negative and therefore unbalanced and unrepresentative.

          A danger, and I will cover this in both of my books, is that, left unchallenged, feminism will seek to institute “research,” “theory,” policy, court decisions, practices, and statutes in which women can only be perceived as victims or, worse, actually be victims. As part of this, men can only ever be villains, and thus are always denied even the acknowledgement that they require assistance, let alone assistance itself.

          Examples of this include the fraudulent Duluth Model of domestic violence, which actually works to ensure that woman can only ever be subject to either “woman abuse” or genuine domestic violence, and the inexcusable suppression of the now proven abortion-breast cancer link.



        • vicbriggs March 15, 2014 at 11:10 am #

          I am afraid that we are unlikely to ever agree on this issue. The pain that you have been submitted to has lead you to search for explanations and in looking for answers it appears that you have come to view any mention of women’s issues as an attack on your cause. You have too much invested in this on a personal level to ever attempt to see things in a different light and I am sorry for it. It is a great burden to carry through life, and since none of its weight can be lifted by anything I may say, I’m afraid I will have to leave it at that.
          Take care,

        • navigator1965 March 15, 2014 at 11:29 am #

          Thanks for your kind words, Vic. You are right, we are likely to never agree, and indeed I regret to say that I disagree with you even now.

          The painful experience to which I was gleefully subjected by feminists, which is the result of systemically enshrined feminist theory and policy here in Ontario, Canada, cannot be rationally reconciled with a opinion of feminism as being a benevolent and lawfully or morally legitimate social movement.

          We disagree, too, on moral relativism, as an aside.

          Indeed, with your being a feminist with a Ph.D. (did I get that right?), it is just as valid to argue that you have too much invested in this on a personal level to ever attempt to see things in a different light. Would it not be psychically devastating to realize that the major life ideology that an intelligent and educated individual had embraced was actually predicated on widespread gender psychopathology?

          Besides what was done to me, my children were knowingly subjected to expert-confirmed child abuse by feminists, of a form held by experts in the field to be as or more harmful than sexual abuse.

          My motivation for continued advocacy against feminism and its inherent duplicity is a moral duty to protect the innocent lives which feminism would otherwise, as a gender narcissistic phenomenon, harm or even leave in ruins.



  2. vicbriggs March 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm #

    PS: Not every single piece that takes women as is subject is “feminism”.

    • navigator1965 March 14, 2014 at 4:27 pm #

      Agreed, Vic. However, the categorical portrayal, even if only by implication, of woman as inherent victims is indicative of feminist ideological orthodoxy.

    • idiotwriter March 15, 2014 at 6:06 am #

      Hey vic – my lovely friend. I am wondering what the purpose is of this page from the paper? Is it just to highlight the plight of women? Is it to hold women accountable for the situation? And to encourage us to take a stance to do something about it? And what is it asking of us to do? Please know that in mind, coming from a third world country and still fairly new to the uk – I do not know about individual papers traditions and ethos. Hence the question of WHAT exactly it is trying to tell us?

      • vicbriggs March 15, 2014 at 6:37 am #

        Hi Belinda, the questions you ask are pertinent ones and perhaps they would be best addressed to the editors of the Independent (will see what the process for that is). Personally, I think that the main reasoning behind it was to highlight the many difficulties women continue to encounter and some of the systemic inequities that have not yet been eradicated both in the UK and the world over: it is after all an International Women’s Day issue.
        Regarding the Independent’s tradition and ethos: it is a fairly new newspaper having been created in 1986 by three former Daily Telegraph journalists. It aimed to establish an alternative centre-left position in terms of political news and views, but it adheres to a liberal, pro-market viewpoint when it comes to economics. It does not align itself with any political party (hence the Independent) and aims to withstand any influence from its proprietors.
        The publication of this page is in line with the type of news that are available in the UK. Its readers, as well as the readers of other newspapers, would have been already aware of most of the statistics published as these are part of the daily fabric of news – so all it offered was an overview to highlight the issue.
        Hope this helps. Will try to get in touch with them and see if I can get some more in depth answers for you regarding the rest.

        • idiotwriter March 15, 2014 at 7:18 am #

          Thanks Ma’am Vic – That would actually be pretty cool hey! To go straight to the source and dig a little deeper as to those answers! Epic stuff!
          Thanks for that background – it is clarify to a large degree and helpful in determining a clearer picture of the entirety current trends and ethos we live within.
          Thanks for taking the time to explain.

          I am wondering of course – as I would due to the context of the article we find this image displayed within if this is truly indicative of the situation women (ONLY women – as it indicates clearly) find themselves in? I do feel led to believe there is a possible insinuation that none of the issues covered are pertinent to a greater global ethos of oppression of the common man as opposed to the elite and rather that it errs on the side of systematically building an understanding (on a global scale ) that these issues are only female related? There is no indication that The Independent is not susceptible to befalling the same mindset of the majority rule which serves to empower women to the detriment of men. It is subtlety that builds trust and a slow corrosion of the building blocks and corner stones of societies.
          In my mind I see no purpose to it other than to be cry the injustices served to women? To further what cause? So indeed they do have questions to answer as to how these figures ONLY reflect (there word) women?
          A contentious little topic – we know this – two sides to the coin as always. I pray we look at both sides 😉

  3. Jenna Rambles March 14, 2014 at 4:23 pm #

    What a bunch of crap. Woman have it way too easy these days and get the special treatment for no apparent reason!

    • navigator1965 March 14, 2014 at 4:31 pm #

      Never in recorded history have women had it as easy as they do today. Strangely enough, never have they seemed to be more discontented with their lives than today, as well.

      Still, there are an awful lot of talented and absolutely swell gals out there. Male or female, a wonderful person is still a wonderful person.

      Has anyone told you lately that you’re wonderful?

      • Jenna Rambles March 14, 2014 at 4:34 pm #

        This is very true! As a matter of fact! Yes someone has! Has anyone told you lately that you are just as wonderful!?

        • navigator1965 March 14, 2014 at 5:41 pm #

          Hmmmm….. I guess someone just did! };-)>

  4. idiotwriter March 15, 2014 at 5:28 am #

    I can say so much here – but you know that. I can only agree.

    • navigator1965 March 15, 2014 at 8:32 am #

      I am preaching to the converted, as the saying goes. And a rather lovely converted, I might add.

  5. Inion N. Mathair March 17, 2014 at 2:37 am #

    I do believe we had a juicy debate here on the Mirror. But I know our friend Nav can and will hold his own, just as the Brilliant Vicky did!! I agree that women have never had it better. But I also know that it’s taken a long long time to get it this way. I believe Vicky made some good points and Nav has made some good points.
    I’m more concerned with the treatment being one way with no varied degree.
    The other night, Inion & I we’re watching a criminal program…..sorry the name escapes me just now. But the story was of a female teacher (31 years old) who had sex with her 13year old student & carried on this affair for more than three years. She was finally caught by another student tattling, & was arrested and stood trial. After she was found GUILTY…she was Sentenced to less than two years. Yep…2 freaking years! Oh and her teaching license was taken from her. WOW that’s what I call a harsh judgment!!
    Now if that had been a man, he would’ve gotten at least twenty years possibly more and tagged a pedophile. And rightly so!!! If you have sex with a child that makes you a pedophile. No questions, no excuses, no exceptions! But it seems if a woman has sex with a child she’s a cougar! If they want to make women & men equal then they should damn well make it equal in all aspects of life. That’s what equal means!! So yes, I have issues with women screaming equality then shouting out….”girl!!! We get special treatment”, when it suits them!! I guess that makes me a traitor to my fellow gals but it’s how we feel. I think that this could be the reason behind men in general being bitter with the cause. It’s so doubled standard & hypocritical when used to benefit women when they choose & then rules are bent when needed to suit their situation. 😉

    • navigator1965 March 17, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

      Most delightful ladies of Irish heritage, you are both certainly a gift from above. The double standard (hypocrisy) that you highlight in feminist thought results from a form of gender narcissism being at the core of the feminist movement. I get into this in my forthcoming books, and I suspect that ardent ideological (a.k.a. radical or “gender”) feminists will be none too pleased with what I have to say.

      Not every ideological feminist will appreciate being told she is afflicted with penis-envy gender narcissism. This is not a pejorative, BTW, but is actually true. Remarkably simple to explain, too. Doesn’t apply directly to emotionally healthy women who simply want to be free to live their own lives, even if they self-identify as being a feminist.

      As for women sexual abusers, you are right on the money. They constitute 25% of the perpetrators. 86% of their victims are not believed, so such female criminals often go unpunished. See for an eye-opening treatment of the topic.

      By insisting on being truthful, you are not disloyal to the gals. It is those who embrace feminism, either in ignorance as to its true nature or due to common psychopathology, who are disloyal to other women. By embracing unpopular truths, you demonstrate courage, and I commend you for it.

      Oh, good news about the rugby, isn’t it?

      As for the delightful Vic Briggs, I do enjoy the privilege of having a civil discourse with such an eloquent and articulate lady. Keeps me sharp. Plus, her wonderful poetry has such superb metre. Hard not to admire it, actually.

  6. Sherri March 18, 2014 at 6:19 pm #

    I’m catching up here late at night and having just read your post and all the comments here with great interest I don’t think I can add anything other than nto say it’s a good job that your book is coming out soon! Wonderful discourse Nav 🙂

    • navigator1965 March 18, 2014 at 8:28 pm #

      Thanks, Sherri. Yes, there was a good exchange of opinions and ideas, here.

      Afraid I’ve been informed this week by my self-publisher that the book won’t be out until May or even June. I suppose I should look on the bright side, as this will give me more time to get prepared for The Mirror, Book Two – Harbinger of a Dark Age.”

      I’m afraid that one of the logical conclusions that one arrives at with my gender narcissism thesis is that we’re in the midst of the same long term process of social decay that befell the Roman Empire. I’d prefer to be wrong, obviously, but I wouldn’t be going through the trouble of writing and self-publishing two books were I not confident in the underlying thesis.

      Hopefully the next Dark Age will only be a little one.

      • Sherri March 19, 2014 at 1:38 pm #

        Oh I’m so sorry to hear this Nav. Seems to be the way of it when publishing from what I’ve read on other blogs but it will be here before you know it. As you say, always good to have the time to focus on the next stage. Looking on the bright side of the Dark Age, ha!

        I’m fascinated with what you share here. Social decay is indeed all around us and your conclusion is troubling to say the least but I’m not surprised or shocked. I wonder who the modern-day Nero will be?

        • navigator1965 March 19, 2014 at 4:30 pm #

          Good question, Sherri. I suspect that it will be every modern day leader, in the eyes of History. Good wisecrack, too–I almost feel like singing the Monty Python song “Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.”

          What’s really remarkable is just how easy it is to understand The BIG Picture. No joke, just about any adult who can read Harry Potter can grasp this whole thing. I suppose it’s a bit like Copernicus and the concept of heliocentricity. When you get right down to it, what he in essence said was, “Hey. This would make a lot more sense if it’s actually the Earth going around the Sun and not the other way around.”

          Of course, we known from history just how popular that concept was at the time (e.g., the heresy of Galileo). I am soon to commit the greatest act of heresy in the history of the Holy and Most Sacred Matriarchal Church of Feminism.

          Thankfully, we’ve moved away from burning people at the stake.

        • Sherri March 20, 2014 at 6:26 pm #

          I can’t get that song out of my head now, thanks for that Nav 😉

          Based on what you say here and what your book is about I would definitely agree that it is just as well that we don’t burn people at the stake anymore…keep safe, all the same…

        • navigator1965 March 20, 2014 at 10:46 pm #

          Sorry, Sherri. Good point, I won’t accept invitations to bonfires from women I don’t know. };-)>

  7. joshmaytr June 7, 2014 at 4:55 am #

    Vic graphic clearly is indicate sympathy for the plight of women world-wide. It is also true that every figure mentioned is portrayed as being an adversity to women indeed. To further know what women want, check What Women Want

    • navigator1965 June 10, 2014 at 4:51 pm #

      That’s an interesting bit of information, joshmaytr. Thank you. It doesn’t cite the references for the information, unfortunately, but the information does seem to be realistic.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: