{Examples} - Feminist Lies

{Examples} - Feminist Lies

Here are some half-true or false statistics, dishonest/wrong/biased conclusions and results from studies/researches/surveys, and myths used and spread by the feminists, commonly known as 2+2=5. The corrupt politicians and the feminist-friendly MSM help spread them. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary. Updated: 2013/09/11.)

  • According to student unions in Canada, 63% of all college women have been sexually assaulted. No rebuttal is being posted here, the article's stupidity speaks for itself.
  • "1 in 4 women is raped". This is a lie. There is less than 1 rape per every 1000 Americans.
  • "More than 1000 women suffer sex attack every day".
  • About 1 out of every 2 women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape an average of twice in her life, one-third will have been sexually abused as children, and many more will suffer other forms of sexual molestation. Such feminist studies are funded by the likes of National Institute of Mental Health, giving them the imprimatur of endorsement by a respected federal agency.
  • "1 in 3 girls at school experiences sexual harassment on almost a daily basis".
  • The campus rape myth: One-quarter of all college girls (i.e., "1 in 4", sometimes modified to "1-in-5 to 1-in-4") will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about 3 to 2); the assailants being the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria (i.e., familiar men). This is a lie of unprecedented proportions (we have stats of rape ranging from "1 in 1877" to "1 in 4"; feminists, of course, just pick up the worst numbers). Firstly, no crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25%, even over many years (for example, the 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit - one of the most violent cities in America - was 2.4%). Secondly, rapists are not your normal people, they're disturbed individuals who have reported more frequent experiences of physical abuse (68%), parental violence (78%), emotional abuse (70%), and cruelty to animals (68%). Most offenders (94%) described having insecure parental attachment bonds; 76% of rapists reported avoidant parental attachments and 62% of child sexual abusers reported anxious parental attachments.
  • Former University of California, Davis employee Jennifer Beeman was arrested on charge of one count of embezzlement of public funds by a public official (she is believed to have embezzled from $2000 to $13000), 3 counts of misuse of funds by a public official, 4 counts of false accounting, and one count of fraudulently altering an account. The charges stem from Beeman's misuse of funds from educational and outreach programs intended to prevent sexual violence. In addition, the university returned over $100000 to the US Department of Justice due to questionable costs the university identified in the use of a grant awarded by the Department in 2005. Beeman, who was director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program for 16 years until December 2008, had exaggerated the numbers of forcible sex offences reported under the Clery Act in 2005, 2006, and 2007. The university corrected the figures in 2009, reducing by more than half the number of incidents reported for each year.
  • 99% of perpetrators of sexual violence are male. Feminists just plain made up this number to prove that a rape culture really does exist.
  • Only 2% of rape claims are false, an obvious feminist lie.
  • RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) stats: 97% of rapists will not spend a day in jail.
  • "Only 1% of rapists are jailed" and "there's effectively no false rape accusations".
  • The feminist-influenced researchers suppress evidence of the male victimization using dishonest means. One of the most blatant examples of this is in the classification of specific acts. The CDC classifies a sexually intimate attack on the genitals of a female victim as rape, but labels a sexually intimate attack on the genitals of a male victim as "other sexual assault". This classification has been used by the CDC and various groups citing statistics based on it to sweep part of the study's findings under the rug in order to maintain the perception that rape is a mostly male-perpetrated, female-suffered crime. The official statement is that 1 in 4 women, and 1 in 71 men have been raped at some time during their lifetime - a grossly dishonest statement. Given a more balanced and accurate look at the CDC's numbers, the NISVS report actually shows that an assault that forces genital-specific sexual intimacy on the victim (rape) is not only experienced by both sexes, but also with nearly equal frequency, and with a much narrow margin between male and female perpetration than feminist rape apologists claim. The 12-month NISVS data shows that the CDC's estimates for "forced penetration" of women (1270000), and men "forced to penetrate" (1267000), were very close.
  • Surveys done among students at the University of Florida found higher perpetration of female abuse of male partners, including stalking. So what did the researchers do? Well, they seem to have assumed the relationships in which the abuse took place were all heterosexual, and have concluded that some of the female violence must have been perpetrated in self-defense or against non-students. While those theories could account for some female violence, so could same-sex relationships, and it's impossible to know the role of any factor without further study. This is a good example of researchers taking data that doesn't fit the feminist agenda and trying to make it fit, rather than looking at it as a reason for further investigation into female behavior.
  • Exaggerated stats of (and media propaganda toward) women trafficking and missing aboriginal women, whereas no concern about the missing men.
  • Women are 3 times more likely to commit suicide (a blatant exaggeration), and yet another misleading 'fact' regarding the gender issues from Wikipedia: "Reported suicide attempts are 3 times more common among females than males" (it was modified later to remove the unfounded "3 times" - perhaps coincidentally as soon as their lie was pointed out; but the statement still remains misleading).
    Speaking of exaggeration, you shouldn't be surprised if the feminists use the hinterlands of rural China as the prima facie evidence that women have harder live and commit suicide at higher rates than men (completely ignoring the logical corollary that men must have harder lives everywhere else as the male suicide rates are higher almost everywhere throughout the world).
  • Gloria Steinem wrote that 150000 American women were dying each year from anorexia, to free themselves from "female bondage". According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the actual number of deaths per year from anorexia is more like 50.
  • False claims of academic bias against women.
  • Laughably idiotic stats and lies being openly told in the Women's Study (also known as Gender Study) books and classes, like, women do two-third of the world's work for 10% of the income. This kind of stupidity is the norm with feminists, for example, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters claims, "Sequestration is going to cause these job losses, over 170 million jobs could be lost", whereas the total US employment is only 135 million. And these obvious lies pulled out of thin air, without any source or citation: "Women do 2/3 of world's labor and own less than 1% of assets", "For every dollar given to a women's program, $20 are given to men's programs", and "In every war around the world, most of the casualties are women and children - they are collateral damage".
  • The wage gap based on grossly manipulated stats. The wage gap, which the feminists claim is due to (surprise!) some kind of patriarchal oppression of women, is actually due to the choices made by women themselves. Women work shorter paid hours (for all OECD countries collectively, women work 243311 hours per year, compared to the men's 309216 hours per year; in just the G7, men are pulling 184733 hours while women clock in at 155285), do not get more advanced training on par with the men, and are less likely to specialize. Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don't compare like with like. You can't blame discrimination for gender wage gap.
    And still there are feminists spewing out the lies from UNICEF like, 51% of the Earth's population (i.e., women) do 127% of the work, account for only 12% of the annual world output of human urine and feces, can bring home the bacon AND fry it up in a pan, produce 98% of the world's goods and services, and commit only 0.00002% of all crimes. This kind of bald faced lies are a hallmark of feminism; people tend to fall for these lies and believe them because they cannot believe anyone can lie so blatantly.
  • The vice-president of the European Commission and the first EU Commissioner for justice, fundamental rights, and citizenship, Viviane Reding, has spearheaded the EU's efforts to bring in mandatory quotas for women on boards. The crux of her argument was that "three-quarters of Europeans are in favor of legislation on gender-balanced company boards", referring to a Eurobarometer survey. However, that's a lie. In fact, when respondents were asked: "What is the best way to achieve a more balanced representation of men and women on company boards?", 40% favored self-regulation and 26% favored voluntary measures such as corporate governance codes. Only 34% were in favor of binding legal measures. The "three-quarters" didn't actually answer a question about fixed quotas at all. Instead, that question was about support for legal measures provided that ability was taken into account and that neither gender gained automatic preference. The amount of lies, hogwash, cheating, government intervention, and all the rest of the circus required to keep women in high positions surely says something about the preferential treatment based on possession of a vagina itself and what women can either do or are inclined to do.
  • The impossible claim that the UK police receives a call about DV "every 10 seconds" (and other exaggerated figures).
  • The actual finding by the British Crime Survey stating that "Among employed women who suffered domestic violence in the last year, 21% took time off work and 2% lost their jobs. Among men in this situation, 6% took time off work and 2% lost their jobs" twisted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into "In the UK, in any one year, more than 20% of employed women take time off work because of domestic violence, and 2% lose their jobs as a direct result of the abuse". Notice the change from "employed women who suffered domestic violence" to "employed women", and ommission of the male victims.
  • In Ontario, a feminist author recently penned a feminist report on DV, in which she reported that about 1.2 million Canadian women had been abused by their partners in the past 5 years. She based this on data from Statistics Canada (StatsCan), which clearly indicates that that 1.2 million number refers to "Canadians" (including 601 thousand women and 585 thousand men), and not just women. This kind of lies achieve two goals with one shot: The feminist grad student and her feminist supervising professor essentially doubled the number of female victims, plus they erased the male victims thereby portraying DV as sexually directional when it's anything but.
  • 1 in 2 women are victims of violence.
  • Julia Gillard's feminist message ("One billion women will be beaten or raped in their lifetimes") on the Valentine's Day, which feminists chose to make about vaginas, naming it V-Day (short for "Vagina Day"). This has been derived from the United Nations' dubious claim, i.e., "1 in 3 women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime" - the UN fails to cite any source to back it up. A source cited by the others is equally dubious. After their feminist take over, even the organizations like the WHO base their programs on these lies and always omit the male victims from their reports and programs.
  • Australia's yearly male-shaming celebration, White Ribbon Campaign spews lies such as this (a tweet from "@WhiteRibbonAust"): "Violence is the leading cause of preventable deaths of Aussie women aged 15-44 - more than hypertension, obesity, or smoking". Facts are:
    ~ Accidental falls are the only 'violent' death in the top 20 leading causes of death in Australia.
    ~ Within the top 10 leading causes of death for women, not one of them is violence related. Instead, for men, 'intentional self harm' is the (only) violent one in the top 10.
    ~ Among the causes of preventable death (Table 1.24.4), violence is the least common form of preventable death (quite the opposite to the claim of the feminist campaign). Violence is 3% of indigenous preventable death and 0.6% of non-indigenous preventable death. Even if every single violence-related preventable death was applied to women aged 15-44, it still would not be the leading cause. Further, from Table 1.24.5b, under the year 2003 (the most up to date), men (indigenous or non-indigenous) have twice the rate of preventable deaths compared to women.
    The campaign's website is a load of lies and typical feminist manipulative language. For example, it has this to say about the male victims of violence (without any citation, proof, or links - as always): "... it is important to acknowledge that men too are often the victims of violence. Many [note the word 'many' instead of 'majority'] of the victims of murder, manslaughter, and serious physical assaults are male. Men are much less [1-in-3 is 'much less'!] likely than women to be subject to violent incidents in the home and are more likely [just 'more likely' instead of 'much, much more likely'] to be assaulted in public places. Violence against men is far more likely to be by strangers and far less likely [again, notice 'far less likely' while it's 30.7%] to involve partners or ex-partners. Of all the violence men experience, far less is represented by domestic violence (less than 1 percent, versus one-third of violent incidents against women). [This is not because the female partners are angels as the way of presentation of the stats deliberately misleads into making it sound like, it's because men's victimization outside the partner violence is much, much higher; women are the least likely group to be attacked outside the partner violence] Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm, injury and death from other boys and men, but small numbers ['small numbers' - notice the downplaying of the females as the perpetrators for the third time within this short account given on the male victims in the whole document which focuses almost entirely on women exclusively as the victims] are subject to violence by women."
  • 1 in 4 women will suffer DV in her lifetime, and other plain lies that kept making rounds (and even still do!) among the media, the feminists, and the policy makers for decades. When the statistics were found totally inconsistent with the related data and questions were asked about their sources, the response was that those stats were for "illustrative purposes" only (that is, were not meant to be taken as true)!
  • Feminist omission and manipulation of data on reproductive coercion, like stating that 53% of women surveyed had experienced violence in relationships, but wilfully omitting the very specific demographic (which was very poor people, and that too exclusively females - no men were surveyed; plus, the study paid the poor women $20 each to be part of the study). This feminist misinformation was, as always, happily and widely reported by many major MSM outlets, giving the impression that the stated rate of reproductive coercion is a general trend. The facts are the exact opposite: From the CDC data, men (8.7%) are more likely to be victims of the reproductive coercion than women (4.8%) (excluding conflict over the use a condom, which could be due to sensation and not necessarily to reproductive control).
    Besides, look at the feminist hypocrisy and double standards regarding the reproductive coercion when women are the perpetrators: UK TV presenter Claudia Winkleman admits that she coerced her husband into fatherhood, on a panel show. And guess what? That was hilarious!
  • Gender based violence kills 1 in 3 women worldwide (of course, no source has been cited for this, because none can exist - The claim is beyond ridiculous and approaches stupidity).
  • Hillary Clinton's claim without any citation that "a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives"; whereas every study shows that the leading causes of death for women are heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimers disease, unintentional injuries, diabetes, influenza/pneumonia, kidney disease, and septicemia. Homicide comes in at number 14 - with no mention of the sex of the perpetrators. In fact, it was the black men aged 15-34 for which murder was the leading cause of death (America, 2009); women are more likely to kill themselves (number 11) than be killed by someone else.
  • The Super Bowl Sunday hoax (also known by the fun term 'Super Bull').
  • DV and IPV related myths, despite even the highly biased government statistics showing that DV has fallen by 64% from 1993 to 2010. DV being an issue controlled by the feminists, unsurprisingly, the myths about it are numerous. Richard Gelles, an internationally-recognized expert on DV, refers to many of these claims as "factoids from nowhere". Here are some examples of these myths:
    ~ According to the FBI, a woman is beaten every 15 seconds.
    ~ 4000 women each year are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends.
    ~ There are nearly 3 times as many animal shelters in the United States as there are shelters for women.
    ~ Battering during pregnancy is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality.
    ~ Women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners.
    Many of these myths are based on DV studies that use biased survey methods. Some studies survey women but not men. Predictably, these studies yield one-sided findings. For example,
    ~ The DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey is flawed because persons do not consider most forms of DV, such as slapping, shoving, or throwing an object at a partner, to be a crime.
    ~ The DOJ National Violence Against Women survey prefaces the questions by repeatedly using the phrase "personal safety". Those words bias the responses because women are more concerned about personal safety than men.
    Some studies of DV assess both physical and verbal abuse. That inflates and distorts the picture of physical violence.
  • Sociologist Lenore Weitzman's 1985 publication, The Divorce Revolution, that shaped the national debate on divorce and its economic effects, falsely claimed that in the year after divorce, women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73% while men enjoyed an increase of 42%. Unsurprisingly, under the matriarchy, this statistic has become one of the philosophical bases for deciding child custody and property division in divorce cases. It was regarded so clearly as holy writ that President Clinton cited it in his budget proposal as part of his attack on deadbeat dads. Some feminists valued the 73/42 statistic as evidence of... you guessed it... patriarchal discrimination against women.
    Richard Peterson of the Social Science Research Council published a study of Weitzman's 73/42 statistic, which was arrived at using an "income/needs ratio". After precisely recreating Weitzman's study using the data sample and methods outlined in The Divorce Revolution, Peterson reported his findings: Weitzman's figures were actually the result of a computer transcription error and dramatically overstated the case. After correcting her errors, Peterson arrived at a 27% decrease in standard of living for women and a 10% increase for men in the first year after divorce. However, because his corrected figures may actually still overstate the inequalities in the economics of divorce, Peterson's revision of Weitzman's numbers may ironically continue the distortion of the truth.
    A few researchers also expressed some doubts about the accuracy of the 73/42 statistic. Some critics charged that Weitzman's sample (228 people who had been divorced in 1977-78) was too small to be representative. Furthermore, the respondents were all from Los Angeles, an area which has its own unique culture of divorce and divorce laws. These concerns, however, received little play in the press, and Weitzman refused to let other researchers examine her data set, shielding her research from further scrutiny.
    Atlee Stroup, professor emeritus of sociology at the College of Wooster (Ohio), was surprised at the 73/42 statistic. He had been specializing in family sociology since the 1950's and felt that Weitzman's numbers were too extreme to be accepted at face value. The National Opinion Research Center provided Stroup with the data sample he needed to ensure that the study he undertook would avoid Weitzman's parochialism. Every year, the Center surveys roughly 1500 adults, creating a national data sample representative of the major socioeconomic segments of American society. Along with Gene Pollock, a professor of economics at the College and an expert statistician, Stroup combined the surveys from the years 1983-1987, creating a cumulative data set of close to 7500 respondents. Armed with this sizable, national data bank, Stroup and Pollock brought their considerable experience - a combined 7 decades of research and teaching - to bear on the question of the economic repercussions of divorce. They found that women and men, at every socioeconomic level, experience a decline in income after divorce. According to their data, women in the first year after divorce experience on average a 22% decline in family income, with professional women's family incomes declining the least (12%) and unskilled laborers declining the most (30%). These figures were far less dramatic than Weitzman's 73%, and comparable to, although still lower than, other studies methodologically similar to Weitzman's, which suggested an average 30% decrease for women. The status of men revealed even more surprising information; the results were sharply contrary to expectations. Instead of the 42% increase reported by Weitzman or the more common 10% figure, the data indicated an average 10% decrease in income, with professional men experiencing a decline of 8% and less-educated workers a drop of 19%.
    Warren Farrell agrees with Pollock and adds that Weitzman's and other studies usually omit several expenses which men face. "There are 5 expenses that men have after divorce, typically speaking, that Weitzman just didn't measure", he says. These include: Mortgage payments on a home they no longer live in, rent on a home or apartment they do live in, child support payments, alimony, and higher percentages of dating expenses. Says Farrell, "No one that I know has controlled for all five of these variables".
    However, as always, this exposure of the feminist lies was of little use. It had already achieved its destructive agenda. Unsurprisingly, given the PC zeitgeist concerning these issues, the observers in academia, government, and the media failed to acknowledge the implications of Stroup's and Pollock's research, and the promotion of Weitzman's 73/42 statistic proceeded apace. The American Sociological Association awarded her book its 1986 Book Award for "Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship". Weitzman repeated the statistic when she testified before the US Congress, and legislatures across the nation revisited their divorce laws in response to her claims. (Weitzman herself takes credit for influencing 14 laws in California alone.) A large number of people, including most feminists, cited the statistic as proof that child support levels needed to be raised in order to equalize post-divorce standards of living, an argument which carried significant weight in the press.

End of the document.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is ON. Only the following types of comments will be published (and possibly replied to): Dissenting with something, proving something wrong, asking for proof of something objective, and enhancing/correcting something. Comments of praise and encouragement are read and appreciated, but won't be published; don't feel bad about that.