F.A.I.R Game…………..and other Feminist Fronts.

 

Let me preface this by saying – feminists are soooooooooooooooooo predictable, any hint that someone has dared to criticise/correct/debunk/discredit the spewings of usually “academic feminists” and they metaphorically circle the wagons.

I can almost imagine the squinty-eyed scowl, the pursed thin lips and flushed cheeks that indicate rising blood pressure! A moment – while I relish that image.

Annnnnnnd we’re back.

Yesterday I posted a critique of an article by Ian Hughes in The Journal.ie an online Irish newspaper Irish Feminism Has Found its Super Mangina – Ian Hughes….. and I was very mean about his two feminist sources – nooooooooo, I hear you say – it’s true, I was – in fact I poured scorn upon these sources. It goes without saying, that any feminist source is by default – tainted.

Anyhoo – Ian Hughes is male, and though he doesn’t come right out and say it – he is, to all intents and purposes a male feminist – perhaps one of the saddest creatures on the planet – a male feminist – that is.

None of them ever seem to get – that they are mere pawns, useful idiots, cannon fodder in the quest for feminist supremacy of………..well………….everything.

Ergo, I made two statements – one that his article was going to be shit – it was, and the second wondering which feminazi was pulling his strings – because – see above – pawn, useful idiot, cannon fodder.

Today, logged onto the blog and noticed a curious thing – one of the “referrers” to the blog was this

The ‘Stolen Feminism’ Hoax, Anti-Feminist Attack Based on Error-Filled Anecdotes, By Laura Flanders, posted on Sept 1 1994 – that would be 20 years ago!

It’s a blisteringly negative “review” of Christina Hoff Sommers book Who Stole Feminism. How very odd – I never mentioned Hoff Sommers at all in yesterday’s article, or her book, but I did, as I said pour scorn on two feminists – Rebecca Solnit and Nikki Van Der Gaag, and their spewings.

Sooooooo, why out of the clear blue sky does this organisation have a sudden interest in a little blog from The Republic of Ireland?

The organisation in question is called F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) and Laura Flanders is one of its founding members – and a feminist – which makes this organisation an oxymoron.

“She was founding director of the women’s desk at the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and for a decade produced and hosted CounterSpin, FAIR’s syndicated radio program. In January 1993, she appeared on the ABCGood Morning America” program as a spokesperson for FAIR to discuss how domestic violence increases during the annual Super Bowl.”

 

Fairness and accuracy in reporting anything, not being a feature of feminism or feminists, hence the oxymoron.

Let me give you a taste of what Laura Flanders is about – she writes for The Nation and this is an extract from one of her “contributions” entitled Demanding Women; After the 2012 elections, women in Washington have a long to-do list—and it doesn’t stop at reproductive rights. Laura Flanders | January 30, 2013

Link Here.

She starts off by going on a bit about how basically it was women who voted Barack Obama into power and therefore “he owes ‘em…….big time.

Though in the print version of her article this little editorial note appears at the end:

“Editor’s Note: This piece originally stated, “Fifty-five percent of women (including 96 percent of African-American women and 67 percent of single women) voted for President Barack Obama this past November.” These statistics refer to women voters, not women in the general population. We have corrected the text to reflect that.”

Sooooooooo, her original article wasn’t quite…….accurate!

Moving on, she has a good ole rant about “reproductive rights” which is femspeak for abortion on demand. Paid for by the State.

“Studies by Ibis Reproductive Health, a research group, show that even those women on Medicaid who are legally entitled to an abortion can rarely get their insurance to cover it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one out of every four women enrolled in Medicaid who would otherwise choose abortion has to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she can’t get Medicaid to pay and can’t cover the out-of-pocket cost herself. At least 200,000 women every year, according to the National Network of Abortion Funds, seek financial help paying for “choice.

Around the states, while national polls show that most Americans support birth control and oppose the criminalization of abortion, the last two years have seen a historic spike in restrictions on abortion services. As The Nation’s editors recently noted, “87 percent of US counties lack an abortion provider, and several states have only a clinic or two staffed by a doctor who flies in from another state.” After the Republicans’ Tea Party–fueled victories in the 2010 midterms, state legislatures introduced more bills with reproduction-related provisions in 2011 than ever before: a total of 1,100 provisions, of which 135 were passed by the end of that year.”

(emphasis added)

Ibis Reproduction Health is not just “a research group” it focuses exclusively on women’s health – ergo not unbiased. Its list of funders throws up some interesting names – see here. She also mentions the Guttmacher Institute.

Typically for a feminist Laura Flanders is highly selective about not just the information she disseminates but the manner in which she disseminates it. She refers to the Guttmacher Institute as the source – in a roundabout way – for her contentions about abortion. In particular assuming the default “outraged” tone when she spouts the factoid that “87 percent of US counties lack an abortion provider,……” one will note that she has quotation marks around this statement – which means she got it from somewhere.

I may have mentioned this a time or several but, if a feminist told me the sky was blue I would actually go outside and physically check for myself – ergo – I tracked down the source of Mizz Flanders quote, on the basis that she is a feminist and therefore dropping a one sentence quote into the middle of an “I am outraged” piece is always suspicious – when a feminist does it – there’s always more, and it is usually something that puts quite a different spin on things than feminists generally like.

So here is what Flanders is alluding to. It comes from this Report. Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2011, By Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman

From the summary:

CONTEXT: Following a long-term decline, abortion incidence stabilized between 2005 and 2008. Given the proliferation of state-level abortion restrictions, it is critical to assess abortion incidence and access to services since that time.

METHODS: In 2012–2013, all facilities known or expected to have provided abortion services in 2010 and 2011 were surveyed. Data on the number of abortions were combined with population data to estimate national and state-level abortion rates. Incidence of abortions was assessed by provider type and caseload. Information on state abortion regulations implemented between 2008 and 2011 was collected, and possible relationships with abortion rates and provider numbers were considered.

RESULTS: In 2011, an estimated 1.1 million abortions were performed in the United States; the abortion rate was 16.9 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, representing a drop of 13% since 2008. The number of abortion providers declined 4%; the number of clinics dropped 1%. In 2011, 89% of counties had no clinics, and 38% of women of reproductive age lived in those counties. Early medication abortions accounted for a greater proportion of nonhospital abortions in 2011 (23%) than in 2008 (17%). Of the 106 new abortion restrictions implemented during the study period, few or none appeared to be related to state-level patterns in abortion rates or number of providers.

CONCLUSIONS: The national abortion rate has resumed its decline, and no evidence was found that the overall drop in abortion incidence was related to the decrease in providers or to restrictions implemented between 2008 and 2011.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2014, 46(1):xx–xx, doi: 10.1363/46e0414”

(emphasis added)

It would appear that the “women’s desk” director of F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a bit of a fast and loose attitude to “accuracy” in fact, it seems she has a rather inaccurate way of representing “facts” – but – are we surprised?

Hell no – she’s a bloody feminist after all!

She also goes on a bit about poverty – and yes – only poverty that affects women.

“According to the National Women’s Law Center in its study of the 2010 Census, the poverty rate among women climbed from 13.9 percent in 2009 to 14.5 percent in 2010—the highest in seventeen years. The extreme poverty rate among women climbed to 6.3 percent, the highest rate ever recorded (with extreme poverty meaning an income below half the federal poverty line of approximately $22,000 for a family of four). The few studies ever done in this area show that lesbian couples and their families are much more likely to be poor than their heterosexual counterparts. Overall, in 2010, 17 million women lived in poverty, including more than 7.5 million in extreme poverty. The number of women younger than 65 without healthcare coverage increased to 19 million, or 19.7 percent, the highest in more than a decade.”

 

Feminists do love their percentages, don’t they – you can do all sorts of things with percentages – for example, if I told you that 85% was the “official” percentage of say black faced sheep in a flock of sheep – you might think “wow – that’s a lot of black faced sheep!”

Actually – it’s not – because there is a flock of sheep grazing on a field not far from where I live – there’s about 100 sheep there and about 85 of them are black-faced sheep – hard to count the little sods, they kept jumping all over the place – but still – 85% sounds and looks like a massive number – much bigger than if I just said “85”

That’s the thing about percentages – it all depends on the number of “objects” – be it sheep or people – that you derive that percentage from.

So it is with poverty percentages – and how one interprets and presents them – when it comes to feminists, you can be absolutely guaranteed that they will “massage” and “fudge” and in most cases downright ignore/delete/eliminate any reference to male numbers of anything. Just like Laura Flanders has done.

Let’s take a closer look at the fellow feminist(s) coven she cited, the National Women’s Law Center

Well first of all the “rate” of female poverty (across all cohorts) went from 15.6 to 16.2 from 2009 – 2010 (a rise of 0.6) NOT 13.9 to 14.5 (also a rise of 0.6) it’s a small point, but we are talking about the director of the women’s desk at F.A.I.R (Fairness and ACCURRACY In Reporting)

What about the actual numbers? (numbers in thousands)

Out of a total male population of 150413 – 21012 (14%) were living in poverty in 2010.

Out of a total female population of 155275 – 25167 (16.2%) were living in poverty in 2010.

Out of a total male population of 149237 – 19475 (13%) were living in poverty in 2009.

Out of a total female population of 154582 – 24094 (15.6%) were living in poverty in 2009.

So 40487 males and 49261 females in the years 2009 – 2010 were living in poverty.

In total 89748 HUMAN BEINGS.

Only the kind of sick twisted inhumane arsehole, that most feminists are, would quibble over the sex of a HUMAN BEING living in poverty.

Data extracted from: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

For example neither she nor any other feminist will ever mention that the highest actual numbers of those in poverty – historically – from 1966 – 2011 in The United States has always been males under 18 yrs old. Always.

Let’s take the years 2006 – 2011 – poverty numbers and rates for persons under 18 years old. Numbers are in thousands.

In 2010 – 21012 (22.2%) of males under 18 living in poverty
1n 2010 – 7947 (21.8%) of females under 18 living in poverty
13065 more males.

 

In 2009 – 19475 (20.4%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2009 – 7682 (21%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
11793 more males.

 

In 2008 – 17698 (18.8%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2008 – 6941 (19.2%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
10757 more males.

 

In 2007 – 16302 (17.9%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2007 6550 (18.1%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
9752 more males.

 

In 2006 – 16000 (17.2%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2006 – 6335 (17.6%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
9665 more males.

 

Data extracted from : https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

Now, isn’t that odd – even though the actual numbers of males under 18 years old in poverty is greater than the actual numbers of females under 18 years in poverty – the percentages appear to suggest that it is females under 18 years old who comprise the largest cohort.

How can that be?

Elementary – the larger the number you extrapolate your percentage from, the larger that percentage will be – and that’s how feminists like to shimmy and roll – duck and dive – misrepresent data and, if that fails – simply ignore ALL figures for males – for anything – and of course shriek like banshees on speed about the female “percentages” as a smokescreen to prevent anyone even bothering to look at those male figures.

This historical table covers the years from 1966 – 2011, and the pattern holds throughout this period.

Here’s the thing – I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that yes, numerically speaking absent the under 18 cohort – more females are in poverty than males.

But – people like Laura Flanders and her ilk make me want to puke – we are talking about hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS – both male and female – living in poverty – what does it matter that out of a larger female population, a greater number of those HUMAN BEINGS happen to be female?

What bloody difference does it make?

Oh wait – I forgot – men and boys are not human beings – or not special enough human beings – even when they are living in extremis.

Hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS are living in poverty in The United States – some of those human beings are male and some are female – but they are ALL human beings.

So while Laura Flanders and her ilk are spewing out percentages (one set of percentages mind) and shrieking about “rates” and how x percentage of women are this, that and the other – they are deliberately, consciously and with malice aforethought, not just dehumanising the invisible male sufferers – they are in actual fact dehumanising the female sufferers as well – because they don’t actually give a shit about women, never mind about men – these women are simply propaganda tools – useful rhetorical devices to vomit out more feminist garbage – the kind of garbage that keeps the gravy train of academic and institutional feminism chugging along – and slick operators like Laura Flanders and her fellow harpies in jobs.

Perched aloft their ivory towers gazing disdainfully down on “the poor” and crawling their way to the tops of their useless “careers” on the backs of the very poor they use to do so.

Anyhoo – thanks for stopping by, I do so hope it was………illuminating…………..and good luck with that whole F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) thing Laura.

Advertisements

3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. caprizchka
    Mar 03, 2015 @ 01:46:13

    It is my understanding, although I can’t provide a link and so take this with a grain of salt, that under Democratic Party administrations, poverty figures are reported high (by raising the bar) and under Republican Party administrations reported low (by lowering the bar). Since every state has a different cost of living (it practically justifies a whole different currency for each state), playing with the numbers is one of those fun things our government does. Moreover, the difference between a country poverty and a city poverty is huge.

    It would seem to me that food stamp rolls are more accurate than the poverty rates because they are handled by the states which have different criteria and different payouts that reflect the cost of living. However, depending on how impoverished the state coffers, even that gets tricky, with some anecdotal reports that housing and food aid are practically designed to create cheaters who in turn fill our private prisons, to include labor contracts fulfilled by s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶s̶ inmates, with the obviously more high-value (higher productivity) s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶s̶ inmates being Black males.

    Doesn’t this story sound all nice and homey and fun? http://theadvocate.com/news/10926338-123/angola-inmates-make-sugar-cane

    Too bad not enough women get to go to prison to enjoy themselves this way. Must be sexism. o/~ Swing Low, Sweet Chariot o/~

    Reply

    • anja eriud
      Mar 03, 2015 @ 18:08:29

      As always Cap – an excellent comment.

      The US Census department does conduct what they call SAIPE (Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates) and breaks down the numbers by State and County.

      These are the SAIPE studies from 1989 – 2013
      http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/

      The thing is – poverty is subjective – is it just about being below a certain income – as you pointed out – does it take into account things like state benefits/welfare/food stamps/subsidised housing etc?.

      Income is only half the story, perhaps even only a quarter of the story –

      US Census – Definitions of Poverty:
      http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/definitions.html

      Feminists like Laura Flanders love to do the “oh my god x number of women are living in poverty” thing, and somehow make this a blanket condemnation of how ALL women are living – with the implication being that this is a direct result of the big bad patriarchy taking advantage of all these poor women.

      Except.

      Something else that Flanders and her ilk don’t mention when they talk about the levels of women in poverty, and is perfectly illustrated by these two quotes from: US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America’s poorest poor
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/03/us-poverty-data-poorest-poor

      “Signs of a growing divide between rich and poor can be seen in places such as the upscale Miami suburb of Miami Shores, where nannies gather with their charges at a playground nestled between the township’s sprawling golf course and soccer fields. The area is a far cry from where many of them live.

      One is Mariana Gripaldi, 36, an Argentinian who came to the US about 10 years ago to escape her own country’s economic crisis. She and her husband rent a two-bedroom apartment near Biscayne Bay in a middle-class neighborhood at the north end of Miami Beach, far from the chic hotels and stores.”

      And this

      “Alba Alvarez, 52, a nanny who chatted recently in Miami, said she is lucky because her employer rents an apartment to her and her husband at a low rate in a comfortable neighborhood on the bay. But her adult children, who followed her to the US from Honduras, are having a tougher time.”

      The poorest women in the US are low paid nannies and domestic workers/in-home workers – and who do these low paid women work for?

      Middle class white women – middle class white feminist women – like Laura Flanders for example, – who they exploit as propaganda to further their vile agenda. So, doubly exploited.

      “In-home workers are more than 90 percent female, and are disproportionately immigrants. One out of every nine foreign-born female workers with a high school degree or less works in an in-home occupation. In-home occupations are growing rapidly, driven by sharp growth in direct-care work, including personal care aides and home health aides.”

      In-home workers have a higher incidence of poverty than workers in other occupations. Nearly a quarter—23.4 percent—of in-home workers live below the official poverty line, compared with 6.5 percent of workers in other occupations.”

      Twice the official poverty threshold is commonly used by researchers as a measure of what it takes a family to actually make ends meet. More than half—51.4 percent—of in-home workers live below twice the poverty line, compared with 20.8 percent of workers in other occupations.”

      (emphasis added)
      http://www.epi.org/publication/in-home-workers/

      So, technically Flanders is correct about the levels of women living in poverty – she just fails to point the finger in the right direction or at the right people for the causes!

      In fact – yet again Flanders has failed to ACCURATELY report the full story. Imagine that – the feminist director of the women’s desk of F.A.I.R (Fairness and ACCURACY in Reporting) being INACCURATE!

      I’M SHOCKED! :)

      I read the story you linked to, about the inmates making the syrup – I am lost for words – the first comment on this story reflects my own reaction “a gift shop, in a prison!!”

      I found myself trying to imagine a gift shop in “The ‘Joy” (Mountjoy Prison) an infamous prison in Dublin – and I simply couldn’t.

      Reply

      • caprizchka
        Mar 04, 2015 @ 07:12:03

        No mention as to the perks of in-home workers. But feminists only care about money. Governor Schwarzenegger’s in-home worker hit the jackpot.

        As for how they’re counting poverty nowadays, I think the point is they keep changing their methods. I gave up following.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: