The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!

The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
By Carey Roberts

Some 20 years ago the feminist crusade ran out of legitimate issues to address, so it did what any smart advocacy group would do: fabricate new injustices and outrages.

The gender wage gap? Well, that turned out to be a fraud.

The glass ceiling? A fatuous exercise in smoke-and-mirrors logic.

Then there’s the “feminization of poverty” canard. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been milking this one for years.

Back in 1995, HRC led the U.S. delegation to China to attend the United Nations World Conference on Women. There Hillary held forth on the economic status of women, making the claim that “Women are 70% of the world’s poor.”

And sure enough, Madame Hillary is at it again. Two weeks ago, she spouted the “feminization of poverty” cliché at her husband’s conference on global challenges. No doubt shedding crocodile tears, Clinton deplored the fact that “Far too many women are stuck in the cycle of poverty from which there is no escape.”

During my life I’ve traveled far and wide, visiting some of the most poverty-stricken regions of the world. And I’ve never seen anything that resembles a sex-based imbalance of poverty.

Indeed, a 2000 document from the UN Economic and Social Council had to admit, “Despite observations on the ‘feminization of poverty,’ for example, the methodologies for measuring poverty among women respective to men are still inadequate.”

A recent report from the UN Development Program was even more pointed: “There is no evidence of systematic over-representation of women among the poor around the world.” [www.undp-povertycentre.org/newsletters/WorkingPaper20.pdf]

And Alain Marcoux of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization once ridiculed Hillary’s 70% claim by noting the total implausibility of the statistic “will teach us a lesson about using illustrative figures for advocacy.”

So exactly where did the notion of the “feminization of poverty” come from?

Not too long ago, men were the primary breadwinners. Poor, middle-class, or rich, men were the designated hitters to bring home a living wage.

But then the Great Society came along. Eligibility criteria for welfare programs either required the man to leave the home, such AFDC, or openly favored female recipients, such as the Women, Infants, and Children program.

“Now listen carefully, class, to today’s arithmetic quiz. Here it is: Take one daddy, one mommy, and two children. Now subtract the male breadwinner. What’s left over?
a) Financial ruin
cool.gif Welfare dependency
c) Social decay
d) All the above

“Class, if you answered d) All the above, you’re absolutely right!”

But the architects of the Great Society were playing hooky that day.

So told they were unwelcome or unnecessary, men gradually melted into the woodwork. And the Black family, which had weathered the storms of the Great Depression and two World Wars, began to disintegrate. In 1960, the percentage of intact African-American families with fathers and mothers at home was 80%. By 1990, that number skidded to 38%. [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0315roberts.html]

When economist Victor Fuchs of the National Bureau of Economic Research combed through the figures from the 1970s, he concluded: “Statistical decomposition of the changes shows that an increase in the proportion of women in households without men was the principal source of feminization of poverty.”

Translation: Divorce places a woman at risk of becoming impoverished.

Fuchs went on to note, “between 1979 and 1984 poverty rates rose for both men and women, but they rose relatively more rapidly for men.” So according to Dr. Fuchs, the real crisis was the masculinization, not feminization, of poverty.

“Miss Rodham, stop drawing pictures of women in villages and start paying attention!”

A few years ago sociologist Martha Gimenez sagely observed that the feminization of poverty myth only serves to fuel “conflict between men and women, young and old, and white and nonwhite.”

Therein lies the secret of cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxists know they cannot topple Western democratic societies with a direct assault. Rather, they seek to undermine basic values, incite gender conflict, and weaken institutions such as the family. Gloria Steinem may have revealed more than she intended when she remarked: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole… patriarchy.”

When widespread divorce and social discord ensue, the Gender Guerillas then blame the whole mess on patriarchal society, leaving behind no marks or fingerprints.

Think about it — it’s the perfect crime. That’s the genius of radical feminism.

10-04-2006 07:20 PM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Wonderful piece.

…the National Bureau of Economic Research — those are Larry Summer’s old friends; the infamous speech he gave was in front of an NBER conference. I guess Victor was too small a fish for the feminazis to fry.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-04-2006 08:22 PM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

The shortest crusade in Women’s history? The Feminization of Modern Islam.

10-04-2006 10:37 PM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

The shortest crusade in Women’s history? The Feminization of Modern Islam.

The irony of that is outstanding! Hillary would return in two weeks sporting a full body hijab.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

10-05-2006 03:11 AM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Hey, she might actually do OK there. They do still use a lunar calendar, you know, signifying the real foundation of their beliefs, in women’s cycles. I’ve always thought the best jihadists were a lot like a woman with an M-16 on full-throttle PMS…

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 10-05-200610:21 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-05-2006 10:30 AM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
minx12
Regular Contributor
minx12

Oh Martian, I am cracking up here, I can just imagine a chick in a burka with chcolate in one hand and a kalishnikov in another. Now that is PMS with a mission!!!

10-05-2006 12:09 PM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Blame it on my watching PBS’s Frontline the other night — all those street scenes from somewhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan, not a woman in sight, and all the men acting totally berserk. It was like an alternate universe version of a N.O.W. meeting.

I’ve got to stop watching that show, it puts such crazy ideas into my head…

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-05-2006 12:28 PM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Women are the majority of the voters, parties with liberal tendencies try and target alledeged women, they are easy prey. You do not have to keep your promises you do not have to show results, all you have to do is to make them feel good at the ballot box, and they will be ready to be seduced again. It backfierd at first but unfourtunatly we see more and more men out of singel parent households with a feminin mindset due to the lack of a father figure with ideas of entitelment and thinking they deserve free money with no work. Sounds like a perfect match, does it ? Think again they wont marry your broke ass unless you are a career gurrrrl threating them like the prince they are. Now if women would only take those men. Problem is they want the kind of men their mothers ruined.

10-05-2006 07:30 PM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Ladies, ladies. Don’t take things out of context. The butt of the joke, is your missing the punch line.
That of the sisterhood and their rape obsessed cronies.
The 1 in 4 stat that 1 in 4 women have been raped. Is just plain bad math.
That would mean there are 75 million rapist men in America right now. Clearly you women, strong wimmen can see it as an attack on men. The sad thing is, women believe these lies. Proof, ladies let us do some more math. There are 2 million men in prison, 75% are in for drug offences, now withstanding all the other crimes in the penal code book, probably 2% are in for rape. There are 15,000 rape convictions in America per year, 80,000 rape accusations. Hardly a pandemic.
Did you women know in the **bleep** Monologues they rape a 12 year old girl. Is rape ok, only if women do it?
Did you know women are more likely to drown their children than men? Or have sex with their students.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48421
Math really isn’t that hard!
———————————————

You feminists grossly exaggerate your claims to violence. Your leaders are clear on their motives to destroy the family, increase abortion and have women live in villages void of male authority.
Trust me, matriarchy’s do not work, there are plenty of them in the world, see if you can find them.
Ladies deserve special treatment. Not you feminist women, you do not deserve special legislation protecting you as women, then as for handouts from men to support your Independence’s, ie alimony and child support.

If it wasn’t for empowering women, the government wouldn’t be so powerful.
See, it all started with empowering women, first they got to vote, then they started working (they have actually lowered the wages of the middle class by flooding the market with females). Then along came socialist, marxist feminists, to take women out of the family, to divorce the fathers of their childrne and diminish his infuence on them. 90% of the time the children go to the mother, and the father supports his expulsion from the family, by paying them money. He is a once a weekend father if he is luckey.
Then in 1980 an unexpected thing happened in this egaultarian, communist utopia where men and women, women and women, men and men are all interchangeable (not really feminist utopia dream, GI Jane entertainment etc), crime started going through the roof. See, 85% of today’s criminals are byproducts of the bastardization and fornication of society. The fruit of fatherlessness is poverty and crime. 75% of single American mothers live below the poverty line! Where is the empowerment in that? Why should men be forced to fund womens impowerment from them? Shouldn’t the all powerful manly woman be able to fund herself, without welfare, child support and alimoney checks? I mean, if she is superwoman and all.
(Remember it was the female vote that got Hitler into power)
So now we need a bigger government than ever to make women feel safe again. What does the liberal media do about the problem? They drive women away

Your feminists claim 1 in 4 women are raped. Do the math that is 90 million rapist men, so yes you clearly intend to smear all men as violent rapists, even though there are only 15,000 rape convictions each year in a nation of 300 million. (how many of those are women?)
Equality is destructive, as it doesn’t motive the weak, but it does lessen the value of the strong, (feminist have always been about empowering the middle of the pack).
You women live in a male dominated society, and you demand to be treated like men, so I suggest we do just that. By taking alimony and child support from you all. If you do not need men, than prove it, GI Jane’s!!!
52 million abortions, and start and promotion of it done by feminism is alot of blood on your hands, so yes, you are murder’s if you are feminist and I can prove it. Guilty by association.
So yes, feminism is an enemy of the traditional man, his family, and the God ordained family of the bible, if you feminists continue to war against it, prepare to see a rapid increase in crime, as 85% of all criminals in prison are from single mother households.
It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see this, that the demise of the family, is the increase of criminal activity and fathers you try to rip from their families and wives who say thay are happiest married, lose. Although they do not lose as much as the children you calm to protect.
Here is my view of a feminist and the children born in America. If the can sneak through to the birthing canal and not get aborted, they are lucky, then they are lucky if they do not get adopted, if they survive that, they sniveling, entitled, perhaps feminist, who deplore cleanliness and housework, might strip their child of their fathers.
Do the math women, women leave marriages in droves, 75% of the time the woman is the one that stands to gain in divorce, and the one leaving. You are destroying America and turning us into a country of despots!!!!
Let’s see if Amperstand lets it stand on verlch.blogspot.com
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/05/31/if-im-to-be-given-one-label-call-me-an-egalitarian/

Yes, feminism is about spreading misery. The best place to raise a child is with a father and a mother. Remember 85% of criminals come from broken homes, I believe the other 15% are friends of **bleep** criminals.
Women of fatherless households are your next generation of hookers and strippers. Using sex to gain attention from men, they have never been taught how to keep a man around, ie nonargumentative, great cook, wonderful encouragement of their man, supporter of her man even when he fails, to life him up to gain the world for her, so she doesn’t have to spend her days working like a man.
Believe me, a homemaker is a full time job. I witness a very tired wife coming home to nest a house after working all day. She works by choice.
Feminists portray men as violent potential rapists, but miss the fact they support murder of the unborn. So you could say feminists are murderers, guilty by association.

————————————–

I think you are taking some things out of context.
The bible also says the head of every man is Christ. The head of Christ is God and the head of the woman is the man.
Man was the first born of all creation and woman, was the last born, to be man’s help mate in his life.
Clearly women are never happy with being 2nd to man, so some women have attempted to usurp the authority over men. If you do not want to argue with feminist female logic, than don’t marry a feminist.
You can see the works of their hands here.
http://www.fathers.bc.ca/feminist_quotes.htm
That is them in their own minds.
Women will testify that they are happiest in loving marriages with a male husband to protect them.

Patriarch Verlch

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

10-06-2006 02:45 AM

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I wonder what it would take to actually deprogam someone who believes in the “liberal media” myth? I know what it takes to deprogram a marine corps boot, a Moonie, a Rajneeshi, and some other asssorted true believers, but you’d think that getting the point across that the US media is not liberal would be easy. What is it that makes people need to believe this? I mean, aside from the problem of not knowing what the word liberal means.

10-06-2006 03:25 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!

Re: The Feminization of Poverty?, There You Go Again, Hillary!
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
While I don’t have an answer to your question, my natural inclination would be to say the media reflects corporate values because that’s who’s footing the bill. In a way, these are going to be somewhat “conservative” values except when it comes to spending money on their products.

Since women control 80% of the disctetionary income, the programing is directed at selling to them. The only programing directed at men is sports (and, previously, Star Trek). So I’d say mainstream TV — I don’t have cable but am vaguely aware what’s there — is going to reflect female values. From the gender gap, these probably lean in the “liberal” direction, not that there’s a lot of politics wrapped up in most programing unless you read between the lines.

To the degree these two influences cancel each other out, anything directed at mass audiences and the mainstream is going to be pretty centrist. Not inviolably, but on average. That’s my take.

Also – I also recommend everyone reading the wikipedia entry on “Liberalism”, or something similar, and familiarizing themselves with what the word means.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

10-06-2006 08:18 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: