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:
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.
(http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/, 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.
* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/25-years-of-the-independents-front-pages-2366678.html?action=gallery&ino=47, 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.