This is the biggest piece of garbage I have seen in years. The UN funded ActionAid International and ActionAid Australia are committed to the core UN policy - destroy the family by destroying the role of the parent and replace said archaic institution with state ownership of the child. See the Democrats backing the UN plan, Australia's ABC call for abolition of the family, Obama plans to replace parents with the state and Scotland have now actually implemented State control of parenting for each and every child.
So now we have a further attack on the family from ActionAid and championed here in Australia by the ABC. This week they released their campaign, titled "Not Ready, Still Waiting". Ostensibly this paper talks about the work gap between men and women.
As you will see the statistical basis of this report can be summarised as:
Take a jumble of mixed up data, use estimated data for the most important metrics, fill in the blanks with averages of estimates, admit to cheating the analysis by using the technique that produces the desired outcome, extrapolate that invalid result across 158 other countries to make it look like western women are spending more time on unpaid child care than they are, do not count men's longer commute or unpaid honey-do lists, only promote the one meaningless "worldwide average" and LOOK! PROOF! Women do more work than men!
The problem as cast by ActionAid
ActionAid charted the working day of men and women, and concluded:
A young woman entering the job market today can expect to work for the equivalent of an average of four years more than her male peers over her lifetime, says international anti-poverty organisation ActionAid.
While I will address the statistical sleight-of-hand behind this finding below, let us stay with ActionAid's narrative for a moment.
The UN's solution to this is to trash society and take over our Government
We are told that this inequality must be addressed by:
- Shift policy decision making power away from those who currently hold power... including multilateral institutions (aka churches), rich-country governments (aka democracy)...and towards developing country governments.
- Develop and hold governments accountable to redistributive national plans with policies that ... aim to: recognise, redistribute and reduce women’s unpaid care work by transferring part of that work to men & the government...
- Put in place appropriate systems, governance, financial support, and monitoring and evaluation programmes so policies can be designed with a genuine “feminist lens” insisting that women’s development potential be at the centre of analysis and decisions.
So what can we see from this is as follows:
- Poor countries should be able to take the wealth of the rich countries;
- This wealth is to go only to women, and the process supervised only by women;
- Social institutions like the Church are also disenfranchised. This follows the UN Agenda that there can be no other power source but the UN, so families, the church & nationalist governments have to go;
- The State must take a larger role in the indoctrination raising of the child;
- Job quotas will ensure the transfer of high paying or desirable jobs from men to women, leaving men all the crap jobs they want.
Deliberate Statistical Fraud
Now here is the actual data they came up with. Their data shows women work an extra 55 minutes a day, even though this chart they provided shows about 28 minutes. Perhaps they though using a graph that shows almost an hour difference would not be believable, so they used a graph that looks much more benign. Then they used a lifetime figure to avoid saying "women work 55 minutes a day more than men". The 55 minute figure is not in the report they circulated so people did not call this graph into question. It was hidden in the statistical methodology handout.
According to their helpful statistical methodology the calculation process shows serious flaws that negate the report:
Problem 1: They extrapolated 59 countries to the remaining 158 with no control or accuracy test
They used data from 59 countries then extrapolated that across the other 158 countries for which they had no data, to claim their report "covers" 228 countries. Which is misleading. The extrapolation used a development and gender index weighting, but no test of the accuracy of their formula was provided. This study should have used a control of 6 of the countries where data was available - then hold those out of the analysis and extrapolate back to test the accuracy of the final figures. That did not happen.
Is this a problem? Consider this. The working life duration used was 50 years across all countries. Yet Chad has an average life expectancy of only 49.8 years, so it is wrong in this regard for most countries - understating working life in western countries and overstating it in underdeveloped countries. The notion of averaging such a basic metric across so many incredibly different countries at different points in the economic growth cycle was a strange choice to make. Why not reveal the score and datasets used for each country and act on a country by country basis?
Problem 2: They used estimated data for what they were actually measuring
"The figures are estimates rather than precise calculations, designed to give an indication of the scale of women’s economic inequality, particularly in relation to women’s unpaid care work, drawing on the most recent available data." and "After proxying for missing observations in, we estimated the weighted averages of the differences in hours on a global level and for the developing world. We also estimated the average of men’s and women’s hours worked (paid and unpaid)".
You read that right. The whole point of the report is to chart the difference between male and female working days, yet they used estimated data. From where you ask? They do not say. Asked Yoda they did.
Problem 3: They admit cherry picking the technique with a predetermined outcome
The data was subject to a rough normalisation. They could have used 2 different techniques to do that. So they used them both, then went with the datset that made the problem look the worst:
"It was decided to use the figures derived from the computations using country income groups, as these seemed slightly stronger in relation to the issues we were trying to convey."
Why were you trying to convey anything! It is not your job to decide the outcome in advance and then cook the data to produce that outcome. That is not statistics, it is advocacy and it begs the wider question - with no datasets provided and no controls, is any of this accurate?
Problem 4: The bit of actual data we had measured different criteria in different countries, so we kinda guessed the rest
"There were significant gaps in the data, for which averages were calculated based on World Bank income classifications. There were also significant variations in the date and age ranges for which data were collected and available"
Translation: the starting data was a jumble of different measurement criteria in different countries from different time periods. So we played around with the data to suit ourselves, guessed the bits we didnt have and the result is exactly what we wanted it to say.
Problem 5: Western birth rates are half the average
The reason for combining all unpaid child care into one worldwide average is explained by different birth rates. Women in the west have one third the number of children of women in disadvantaged countries, and one half the number of kids as the worldwide average. The time a woman spends on unpaid work is a function of the number of kids a woman has. By averaging across all countries you inflate the amount of time western women spend on child raising duties, making the problem worse than it is. Ref
Problem 6: These studies never include honey-do lists
Feel free to check any such "men do not pull their weight" study. You will see that there was no allowance made for honey-do lists ("honey, can you do these jobs this weekend") - things like yardwork & maintenance. Feminists ignore this because it is not regular, and many people live in home units so that gives them the chance to say "no maintenance at all", which is wrong of course. I understand the problem, some weeks I do none, some weeks you spend all weekend working through your honey-do list. But it makes their case stronger and by their own admission this data was rigged in order to do that.
Problem 7: Commuting
Feminist inspired "advocacy research" always pulls the same stunt. They refuse to count commuting time as part of work. So consider this:
When a couple decide to have a child, the first thing the do is the wife looks for a job closer to home, with shorter hours, less stress and less responsibility so she has time to nest, and that usually means less pay. The husband goes the other way, and looks for a job with more pay because he has more mouths to feed, and if tha tmeans commuting further then he takes it. So on friday the wife arrives home at 5.15pm - after leaving at 8.30am to drop the kids at school - with her pay packet which may be $600. The husband comes home at 7pm after leaving at 7am and gives the wife his pay packet unopened, which may be $900.
Men commute 28% more than women, and remember there are 2 commutes a day. That accounts for a lot of the 55 minutes difference this report found (well 55 minutes if you count all the time western women spent on unpaid childcare for babies that were born in third world countries).
So let us put the statistical invalidity behind us and turn to the other issues mentioned in this report.
Lie 1: The wages gap
This has been widely debunked so I am not going to do that here. This is the Sydney Morning Herald on the subject and Forbes, who put the whole gap down to having kids. The Independent confirms this, pointing out that in the USA lesbians earn 20% more than women as a group - because there is the expectation of not having kids. Anyway Feminists dispute the debunking so have fun making up your own mind.
The vignette above actually explains why the wages gap is not possible to compute for married couples anyway, since men give their pay to their partner, the analysis is moot. It is not who earns it, it is who gets it.
Lie 2: Majority of the hungry are women
In talking about Australia on page 15, the report makes this claim:
"approximately 1.2 million people, mainly women, are food insecure."
Well actually no they are not. The report quoted for this is "Mann, A. (2016) ‘The right to food – and how 1.2 million Australians miss out’, The University of Sydney." It does not say anything of the sort. What it does say is that the proportion of hungry is in proportion to the gender ratio of our society which is skewed slightly female. Dictionary definition of "mainly" is:
"chiefly; principally; for the most part; in the main; to the greatest extent"
- rather a dishonest and deliberately misleading way to express a gap of just a few percent. The point of using that language is to demonise men for leaving women in need, to treat men as the enemy in order to marginalise men and hand control to the UN-backed feminist lobby. The truth is both men and women are being equally screwed by this ongoing transference of wealth from the poor to the elite. I guess such a horrible misconstruction of this problem is what you call a "feminist lens".
Lie 3: Society is to blame for women's poor retirement income
Also on page 15 we have this:
"pay disparity, coupled with the unpaid care work that women manage, leads to women having less than half the retirement income of men, whilst living longer. This means that some older women experience extreme hardship, including increased rates of homelessness."
I remember a time when women's retirement was quite comfortable. The wife retired early, or never worked at all, the man worked to 65, then had an average 7 year retirement before dying at 72. The wife then inherited everything, and lived comfortably off that for the remainder of her retirement before dying at average 79.
That was when divorce was at 8%. Now divorce is at 45%. A couple divorce, their superannuation is split 50:50 (it's the law). The problem is our super industry takes massive fees out every year. One large nest egg untouched will grow. Split the nest egg in half and you get an amount too small to grow, and in fact is likely to be eaten up by the fees. In addition the woman finds herself in a brutal labour market and cannot add to her nest egg at the rate they did as a couple. Nor can he by the way.
Divorce screws them both. The word divorce does not appear in this report, probably because 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife. Any conversation about female retirement poverty has to be about divorced persons retirement poverty and perhaps it is time to ask how divorce went from 8% to 45% - it is time for a fresh look at marriage and divorce and ask some hard questions.
What the numbers for women clearly say are:
- Do not have kids, spend your working life providing for yourself; or
- Have kids into a stable family with one person taking a primary carer role with periods of work in the cycle of things, and the partner with the highest earning potential taking the primary breadwinner role. Provide for your retirement with super and house and enjoy a comfortable retirement. Feminists hate this scenario because with 60%+ of university enrolments being women, women must step up as the primary breadwinner and support their male home duties partner and they hate that idea.
The real UN agenda - government control
What we see with female opportunity and income is that the more developed a country is, the more equitable those measures become. What ActionAid did here was to obscure that fact by treating the entire planet as one average figure, and compound the obfuscation by not providing the data or country results. ActionAid do however acknowledge this in the report - all the pictures of women are from the third world. That is where the problem is.
The UN is pursuing an anti-development agenda in the name of protecting mother earth, or GAIA. Their Agenda 2030 calls for 75% of the land and sea area to be not only protected from development but locked up "hunger games" style - no-one allowed in to farm, gather or hunt.
Their solution to gender inequality in respect of hours worked and income earned - real or manufactured - is not and cannot be the one thing that will fix it. Economic development. Rather their agenda is to lift up the third world by taking from the developed world for a nett zero environmental footprint.
Our incomes, men and women have gone back far enough. We need to fight back against this Agenda driven propaganda and take our democracy back.