You know the statement "Women own 60% of US wealth" is just MRA idiocy, right?

[Squinch]

“Women own 60% of the nation’s wealth.”

I see this obviously ridiculous statement often, even here on DU. It is usually used to support a claim that women are no longer at a financial disadvantage to men, and should therefore just quit their damn complainin’. (for example, see responses here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101225112850AAqpcMx)

But a stroll through the interwebs shows this idea to be just a silly urban myth with no statistical support, and with many different versions, depending on who is talking.

Some sources, dating from 2005 to 2007 said that women WOULD own 60% of the wealth by 2030 if a certain set of unlikely events occurred. Some sources said they would own 60% of the wealth by 2025, some said women already own that much of the wealth of Great Britain, but, again, no sources backed up the information. Many said “a new study shows that women own 60% of the nation’s wealth” but none of these identified the study.

Here’s a thread from an MRA discussion board from 2007 where a poster asks the question “where did the claim that women own 60% of the nation’s wealth originate?” He asks because he made the claim on a website and was being required to back it up. All the poor MRA dears looked and looked, but they couldn’t find any source for the claim. http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/i-need-proof-women-own-more-wealth-north-america-3522.html

Many of the references to the “statistic” were worded to say that women “control” most of the wealth, which led me to what I think is the true origin of the myth:

It is a fact that women make about 60% of CONSUMER SPENDING decisions in the US (about 4.3 trillion) according to advertising industry information and government data. Which means that women usually buy the clothes, the groceries, the household services, and are usually the decision makers on furniture and appliances purchases, etc.

But saying that women are responsible for 60% of household spending decisions is a far cry from proving that women control or own 60% of the wealth in the country. After all, women probably made most of the household spending decisions in 1955, too, and no one is stupid enough to say that is proof that women in 1955 owned most of the nation’s wealth.

Here is a summary of another possible source. It has some statistics that might be the ones being tortured in order to come up with the idea that women have 60% of the wealth. http://www.immersionactive.com/resources/50-plus-facts-and-fiction/ The thinking seems to be that baby boomers own about 60% of the nation’s wealth and women outlive men by an average of 5 years, so therefore someday all the baby boom men will die at the same time, and the baby boom women will own all of that 60%... or something... Which is patently ridiculous on too many fronts to count.

Here are some actual facts: in 2012, women still made 77 cents per dollar made by men. Women still vastly outnumber men in the poorest segments of our society, women are greatly under-represented in the wealthiest segments of society, and women are far less likely than men to have retirement savings, thus women are more likely to face destitution in their old age.

So isn’t it time we tossed this idiotic MRA talking point into the trash?

[PDJane]

1. Yes, it is. The trash is precisely where it belongs.

[hobbit709]

2. How much wealth does Alice Walton have?

[LanternWaste]

7. A statistically atypical amount, one may hazard...

A statistically atypical amount, one may hazard...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. Tis the Exception that makes the Rule.

[Squinch]

10. I don't know. How much does she have?

[hobbit709]

11. The Walton family heirs have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the country.

[Squinch]

12. OK, then.

[Bjorn Against]

16. She has an enormous amount, so do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the Koch Brothers

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make in bringing her up because no one is denying there are wealthy women in the world. Alice Walton does not disprove the OPs point in any way.

[hobbit709]

17. Don't confuse wealth and income.

a lot of the 1%-and especially the 0.1% are women.

If you reckon income from wages women get the short end of the stick.

[demmiblue]

20. That is simply not true. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

22. Where did I confuse wealth and income?

I never even mentioned income, I was just trying to figure out your point in bringing Alice Walton up. I know there are many wealthy women in the world, no one ever suggested otherwise. The fact that there are a number of wealthy women however does not mean that women control 60% of all wealth.

[chervilant]

110. Your assertion is disingenuous,

and easily discounted by a modicum of research. The less than 400 wealthiest humans -- who own and control more than 45% of this planet's resources (including humans) -- are men. A third of these wealthiest men are from the United States. Furthermore, they are old and Caucasian.

Please stop posting insupportable assertions.

[jeff47]

52. About the same as her 3 brothers.

Not a terribly good example when there are three times as many men with equal inherited wealth.

[TBF]

117. As of last year 14th richest in the world -

In March 2012, her estimated net worth was US$26.3 billion, making her the second-richest American woman and the tenth-richest American. As of October 2012, According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index her estimated net worth was US $27.1 billion, making her the 14th richest person in the world. (source: Wikipedia)

Even if the statement is true when you combine Walton, the Queen, JK Rowling, etc ... it is a senseless statement because only a few women control that wealth. The majority of women in the world are not in those circumstances.

[hobbit709]

118. And only a few men control most of the wealth.

The 0.1%ers control most everything and pay us about as much heed as we do to an ant.

[TBF]

119. Agree 100%. nt

[Squinch]

132. And where I have been seeing the statement, it usually refers to the US.

[TBF]

137. Christy (the wife) and Alice (the daughter) of Sam Walton

both live in the US. It's still hard to believe because the other 8 on the list are male ... (in terms of top 10 richest folks in the country). Source: Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

1 Bill Gates $72 B
2 Warren Buffett $58.5 B
3 Larry Ellison $41 B
4 Charles Koch $36 B
4 David Koch $36 B
6 Christy Walton & family $35.4 B
7 Jim Walton $33.8 B
8 Alice Walton $33.5 B
9 S. Robson Walton $33.3 B
10 Michael Bloomberg $31 B

[seabeyond]

3. i saw today the 60% claim. here on du. nt

[Squinch]

5. I see it here all the time!

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Would you believe 40%...

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0718.pdf

But that doesn't mean much the way trusts are set up. And it's not everyone.

There are a lot of talking points on all sides that should be tossed, but who is to decide...

[Squinch]

8. From that link, I would believe that in 2004, 40% the group of Americans who

own more than $1.5 million were women, but that doesn't mean that they own 40% of American wealth.

Edited for grammar.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. True, but it doesn't mean they don't...

and nobody's bothered to define "wealth" anyway. Does it include vested retirement benefits? The half of the house the wife owns jointly?

BTW, where did that 77 cents to the dollar number come from? It's been around for a long time but I never saw a source. That's OK, though-- I threw out the 60% number myself earlier when making a larger point.

These are all useless talking points handy to express outrage, but aren't necessarily accurate, have no background information even if true, and have no solutions proposed.

Heard today that most bankruptcies are by women, and a little later that most of those are single mothers with medical bills. If those two facts are true, see how the second one completely changes the inferences in the first?

Yes, a lot of women are facing hard times. Men, too, btw. And solutions would be better than harangues.

But, none of us have solutions, so we lash out in anger.

[Squinch]

18. The 77 cents figure is not a useless talking point to express outrage. It is from the US Census

Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf

See the chart on page 11.

So, rather than an expression of outrage, it is actually a fact.

Do you have information that would support that women own 60% of wealth if vested retirement and joint ownership was included in the definition?

I don't believe that there was anything in my OP that could be characterized as lashing out or expressing outrage. Or a harangue.

[kcr]

23. You weren't. But that happens all the time on DU

And contributes to the shrieking harpy feminists on DU meme. DU would be so much better without them!

[Squinch]

24. I guess I could try shrieking if it makes it more fun for people. But my throat is a little

sore today, so I'd rather not.

[Curmudgeoness]

29. Shrieking harpy feminists.

Well, isn't that nice! DU would be so much better without that sort of demeaning comment.

[kcr]

32. ???

I'm sorry, but I do think a certain group sees us that way.

[Curmudgeoness]

34. I've seen that group.

In fact, I have seen too much of them lately. I am on slow boil, and let's hope that the pressure valve doesn't get clogged up.

[Squinch]

125. But I do think that the post you responded to was supporting the OP

[Curmudgeoness]

173. It does seem that way now.

The reason we have a smilie, I guess.

[Squinch]

60. I think you are right.

[DLevine]

112. Your post was alerted on (2 - 4 to leave it).

The alerter thought you were calling feminists shrieking harpies instead of calling out those on DU who call us that.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. OK, but we're back to the solution...

and for that we need the reasons for the pay inequality.

If women are paid less for the same job, that's wrong and wasn't the Lilly Ledbetter Act dealing with it?

If women tend to work in positions that pay less-- why? Part time? Why?

If women choose jobs that let them take time off for family stuff, can we arrange things so that they can have better jobs that allow them that time? Subsidized day care or nanny services?

If there are a large number of women returning to the workforce after kids are grown, how do we accelerate their pay increases to catch up?

And what about the generation of women coming up who are outnumbering men in professional schools? They don't count?

See how this works. Just screaming that women make less than men means nothing unless you explain why and propose a solution.

And, yes, the tone of the title alone had the tone of a harangue. Rants always appear more like rants to readers than writers.

[Squinch]

26. I believe that we were talking about the fallacy of the statement that 60% of American

wealth is owned by women.

If you would like to have a thread which proposes solutions to pay inequality, by all means, you should begin one.

Again, no one is screaming at you or haranguing you or ranting at you, but I am pretty certain that there is no way to convince you of that fact, so I will just wish you a good night.

[boston bean]

42. Lily Ledbetter does not mandate equal pay

It gives a person standing to sue their employer if they find out they are being paid less and all else is equal. It did not advance the ball very far and didn't deal with the issue like the fair pay act would.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. The equal pay act of 1963 is inadequate?

It's against the law to pay women less for the same work, and it has been for 50 years.

Unsurprisingly, given that legal backdrop, the actual gap is small - somewhere between 0 and 5%.

Women as a group are paid less almost entirely because they work fewer hours, pick different careers and spend fewer years in it. Even the AAUW concedes that 75% of the pay gap is attributable to these choices.

Unless the legislation infringes choice, it won't have any effect on the raw pay gap.

[boston bean]

113. Obviously it is inadequate.

[bettyellen]

172. 0% Jeff- really? I know you used to float this 60% of wealth bullshit, so I'm

Wondering if it isn't time for you to find better sources.

[NoOneMan]

63. Your questions jogged my memory to an article from earlier this month

One that addressed the "why" in a manner that surprised me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024115316

“These changes raised men’s wages relative to women’s and exacerbated the gender wage gap by an estimated 10 percent of the total wage gap,” the study says. “This overwork effect was also sufficiently large to offset the wage-equalizing effects of the narrowing gender gap in educational attainment and other forms of human capital.”

Overwork is particularly common in professional and managerial roles, where it’s expected in order to gain promotions and better pay, the study says. Women are less likely to take a job that requires overwork, and less likely to stay in one — possibly because they’re expected to do other things, too.

Just a study. That's all. Now, I know a lot of the reasons these patterns persist are cultural/structural, but it might not be as cut and dry as women get paid less because a system puts them down repeatedly for simply being women. Such a system also dictates men should work overtime chasing promotions, which is no way to spend your life.

The bottom line is that labor must be divided to run a household with a finite amount of time, and culture is still dictating who takes care of what to make sure things run smoothly.

In my opinion, it might make more sense to look at single, unmarried individuals without dependents to see if the wage gap still persists (which would disprove this study's conclusion).

[seattledo]

38. Stop I insulting us by saying we make less

We make more when you take into account less experience and less time on the same job. You're being insensitive.

[Squinch]

39. This doesn't make much sense to me. Would you clarify?

But anyway, I wasn't saying we make more or make less. I was saying there is no statistical basis for saying that women own 60% of American wealth.

[treestar]

6. Yep, right into the trash

Shows how far falsehoods can go and gain traction.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. it's hilarious after I posted my reply about QEII, I saw your post above with graphic

great unintended convergence.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. and then if you take The Queen of England out of the equation....

[Squinch]

19. .

[intaglio]

106. Or perhaps if you take the Sultan of Brunei out of the equation

Why stop there? Take the Saudi royal family out of the equation, and Rupert Murdoch. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the male members of the Walton Family, the Koch Brothers, several Russian Oligarchs and you could prove women are the 1%

Essentially you are deliberately making fun of a solid attempt to debunk statistical bullshit for no better reason than that attempt is supportive of women. If you cannot support such debunking you really should consider not posting in a fact based community.

[hfojvt]

143. easy there

the post you were replying to was supporting the "debunking" not really mocking it.

Although the Queen of England relates more to the question (which was also touched on in the OP) "What percentage of wealth do women control in the UK"

Well, the Queen is clearly an outlier who might make it look like women control more wealth than they actually do. And unlike some of the people you listed (other than the non-American and non-British royalty) and unlike Oprah (another outlier with far more wealth than the average woman). Anyway, unlike Oprah, the Queen did not in any way EARN her massive wealth, she was just born into it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

167. Lol.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. Yes. K&R

[ancianita]

27. Yeah, the claim is bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Gender_pay_gap,_by_state.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

[Squinch]

28. That second link shows that

women made 81% as much as men in 2010.

The latest Census data shows that women made 77% as much as men in 2012.

So it's getting worse! By 5% in two years!

[ancianita]

40. And that's in rich USA. Worldwide, the UN claims that women have only 5% of cash, 1% of property

http://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us/~/media/8D27D2FB09AB4AA38E8189F9283E6539.ashx

http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-s=1_2765765&N-f=1_2765765&N-u=1_107377&N-p=20186444&N-fa=2765765&N-play=0

[Squinch]

41. Oh, my God! That is stunning!

[ancianita]

46. The UN keeps the most sweeping data on how women lose the war men wage against them.

Because, let's face it. They're not GIVING their wealth away. They themselves are commodified into invisible slave labor, all the value and wealth going to their men and children, mostly the male children. Not to mention how enforced poverty is used to manipulate them into the prostitution and pornography "businesses" that men declare legitimate by their consumption. It's a war on so many levels, no women can fight them all and do what she believes to be a good job raising children.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/default.htm

http://datatopics.worldbank.org/gender/

[NoOneMan]

62. Which doesn't really pertain to who controls what percent of wealth

Those women who made less could very well of been married to men who made more. So they, by law, have equal control over such wealth.

[kcr]

101. Yes, but really, that's what matters.

These wealthy women married to these wealthy men inherting their wealth are a very tiny percent of the population. So it really doesn't speak much to equality overall. So, even if the MRA happens to be right, and they very may well be one day as the 1% wealth mass continues to grow, and more women outlive those men and inherit it, it doesn't matter to the rest of us. In fact, all it does is make things worse for the rest of us overall. What really matters is the wage gap and income equality. As long as that doesn't change, it doesn't matter.

[NoOneMan]

102. No, Im talking about everyone. All ordinary people.

If by average a married woman makes less than the man they are married to, they still--by law--control an equal amount of wealth. It matters as far as this "argument" is concerned

What really matters is the wage gap and income equality. As long as that doesn't change, it doesn't matter.

Yes. I really couldn't agree more on this point. The reality is that for everyone who isn't on the top, its sucks being on the bottom despite your gender--and its not getting any better

[kcr]

103. Okay. Then why does it matter if women "control 60% of the wealth"

Even if it happened to be true. I'm just having fun pointing out that it isn't even true, but even if it were it's irrelevant. MRAs love to point gotcha with a meaningless factoid that isn't even based in reality.

[NoOneMan]

107. I don't know. Do you think it matters?

I'm just commenting on the OP and considering the veracity of the claim and counterclaim. Neither side really has a better argument. I could give a damn one way or the other. I've never seen this claim before tonight.

I'm assuming the grand argument here is the claim that the percent of wealth controlled by males is somehow related to the amount of oppression that women suffer under. MRA wants to accept this premise and point out women control more wealth to refute that men have the ability to oppress them. For all intents and purposes, it seems like the objecting feminists want to accept this premise and merely argue about the amount of wealth, to bolster the notion that the men who have more wealth have the means to keep em down. Or thats the skeleton of the tussle.

I reject the premise completely. I do not think the system of oppression that has existed for thousands of years is directly dependent upon one side having more control of the wealth and being able to oppress another by exercising that power. I believe culture is deeply involved, and self-perpetuating gender roles and education and subconscious shit and a whole host of things that are more complicated than who has the bigger bank account. So frankly, the very idea that DU has obsessed again over this irrelevant idea for any length of time seems to miss the overall point of exactly where we are at today and why, and moreso, where to go.

[kcr]

109. No, I don't really think it matters very much.

I think income equality matters much more. If you actually do research though, most sources say around 50% of women currently control wealth, FWIW. Some project the numbers going higher with boomers.

[Squinch]

133. And I am seeing a few here that actually agree

with the OP but don't realize it.

[Squinch]

126. If the women marry men who make more than them, why do you assume that the

women and not the men control that wealth?

I will agree that they make most of the spending decisions, but why would you say they control the wealth? We could just easily - or more easily - say that the men in those relationships control the wealth and flip the statistic.

[NoOneMan]

141. I assume they both do equally because they do by law

[Squinch]

144. Exactly. They both do equally, so they cancel each other out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. wealth <> income

[Curmudgeoness]

30. Excellent post, Squinch.

It is time we take down some of these lies that are used to deceive people into thinking females have it so good. I wonder how the "median" woman and man fare regarding wealth. Just because a few women are very wealthy means so little.

[Squinch]

31. Thank you!

I just kept seeing that comment and thinking, "whaa?"

[hfojvt]

33. I think THIS is the first time I have seen it.

I didn't take the stats for 2011, not the gender breakdown.

So, looking at 2002 I find

110 million households
59 million married couples
19.3 million single men
31.7 million single women (dang it, those numbers SHOULD make dating easier for men)

By wealth it was (the first number being the percentage with zero or negative, the 2nd number being those with over $500,000 in net worth) (edit - the poorest vs. the richest, by percentage)
married - 11.9 vs. 12.4
men - 20.7 vs. 4.8
women - 24.0 vs. 3.6

at the next level (under $5,000 vs. over $250,000) (the next poorest vs. the next richest)
married - 5.7 vs. 14.3
men - 13.3 vs. 7.5
women - 13.7 vs. 7.3

at the next level (under $10,000 vs. $100,000 - $249,999)
married - 3.5 vs. 23.8
men - 6.8 vs. 15.1
women - 6.0 vs. 16.9

summing up all three (under $10,000 vs. over $100,000)
married - 21.1 vs. 50.5
men - 40.8 vs. 27.4
women - 43.7 vs. 27.8

In general, married couples are far more likely to be wealthier and far less likely to be wealth-poor than single households. Female households are slightly more likely to be wealth-poor, but also slightly more likely to be wealthy than male households.

As far as the total wealth owned by each gender, I find THIS interesting. If you assume that each household has an equal share of wealth and you can also figure that the women own half the wealth of the 59 million married couple households. Then women's share of the wealth would be (59/2 + 31.7)/110 = 55.6%

So 60% is perhaps NOT THAT unreasonable a guess.

And to say that something can NOT be proven, is not the same thing as debunking it.

As for what you said

"Women still vastly outnumber men in the poorest segments of our society." That appears to NOT be true on a percentage basis. 24% vs. 20.7% is NOT a huge disparity. But sheer numbers are gonna be greater for women because the 31.7 is far more than the 19.3.

However, you can use the SAME logic to say that women are much wealthier. By numbers there are 1.14 million female households with over $500,000 in net worth and only 0.93 million males households with that much wealth.

Now you may point to the Forbes 400 list being mostly men. But most of those men are NOT bachelors. Is MELINDA Gates somehow NOT fabulously wealthy? If she got divorced from Bill today and moved in with ME, wouldn't we be living the life of Riley? (Mel, call me, or send me an email) (or better yet, Oprah, drop me a line (so I won't be a home-wrecker)) Is she somehow poor as a church-mouse while only Bill and Bill alone lives the lifestyle of the very rich and famous? Further, I don't think that 400 out of 110,000,000 is somehow representative of the average reality as lived by the rest of us.

So, again, THIS "women are greatly under-represented in the wealthiest segments of society" does NOT fit the facts.

And neither does this "women are more likely to face destitution in their old age." The vast majority of women get married, and thus have some claim on their husband's assets in their old age. Further, unlike single guys, they are more likely to have children they might be able to turn to for support in their old age.

Somehow, I don't think that I can count on my fur-babies.


edit - link for 2011 census of wealth http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/

the fourth link under "latest releases" table 4

[paulkienitz]

36. excess single women

31.7 million single women (dang it, those numbers SHOULD make dating easier for men)

Indeed they do... if you're over seventy. I think you'll find most of that surplus are senior citizens.

[hfojvt]

54. that was my thought too

but they broke it down by age range

Looking even at 2011, (which I included a link for)

there are 7.13 million female headed households where the woman is under age 35 and only 6.07 million male households.

For households age 35-54 the numbers are 11.59 million women, 9.13 million men.

I notice that poverty is up for females, but that partly seems to be because marriage is down. For the under 35 households there were 6.07 million single men and only 9.67 million couples. Whereas in the next older group there are 26.5 million couples and only 9.13 single men. 61.4% married for the under 35 group and 74% married for 35-54 age group.

Now perhaps the young group includes a bunch of people in their 20s who still have not met the right somebody.

But the marriage rate for those under age 35 in 2002 was 66.3%.

[Squinch]

37. Can you provide the source for this? I don't understand the

levels and the description (example "Under 10,000 vs 100,000 to 249,999, then "married 3.5 vs 28.3&quot

[hfojvt]

44. I added a link for the 2011 census of wealth

I copied and pasted the one from 2002 and have it as a file in my email. So I refer to that. I added data from 2011, but didn't add all the data, including breakdowns by age and gender.

The numbers $10,000 is a measure of net worth.

Thus 3.5% of married couples had less than $10,000 in net worth (not including those who had $5,000 or less who are enumerated in the previous two groups)

and 28.3% of married couples had a net worth of more than $100,000 and less than $250,000 (as again, those with more than $250,000 are counted in the previous two groups - the last measure is where I combine them all.)

I'd copy and paste all the data, but DU software tends to scrunch such things and make them unreadable as the numbers all run together.

[Squinch]

53. So we'll have to use your 2002 numbers so we are both talking about the same thing.

Here is where I am losing you: Are there any figures for how many households fall into each category? We are looking at percentages in each category, but we have no idea of the weight of the relative poverty, and for that we would need to know the numbers of people in each category.

You can't really add up percentages to get the conclusions you have drawn unless you have weighted them by their relative prevalence. For example, if you have two poor women in the first category and 20 in the third, that will give you a very different result than if you have 20 poor women in the first category and 2 in the third.

And do I understand this right? each category excludes the others? or are they three different ways of segmenting the same population.

ETA: If it is three different ways of segmenting the same population, we can extrapolate from those original numbers. But if it is three segments that exclude the others, we can't really know anything about totals.

On the other hand, if it is three different ways of looking at the same population, we can't add up the data anyhow.

[hfojvt]

65. not sure what you mean by categories

these categories?

110 million households
59 million married couples
19.3 million single men
31.7 million single women (dang it, those numbers SHOULD make dating easier for men)

or these?

By wealth it was (the first number being the percentage with zero or negative, the 2nd number being those with over $500,000 in net worth)
married - 11.9 vs. 12.4
men - 20.7 vs. 4.8
women - 24.0 vs. 3.6

Sure you can add those up, because they have the same denominator

11.9/100 + 5.7/100 + 3.5/100 = 21.1/100

And if you add up all the categories, you get approximately 100/100.

Of course, I did not include all 9 categories - just the extremes. The three at the top and the three at the bottom. Leaving out the three in the middle (although their approximate sum can be calculated).

The net worth of every household will fall SOME where on that spectrum, although they could have decided to divide things up further than they did. I mean, why lump all those over $500,000 together? Why not split that group into those above $5,000,000 and those below it.

Although 2011 also included medians, so that is one split. For example, the median net worth of those with over $500,000 in net worth was $836,033. Thus, I can divide the 13.5% with net worth over $500,000 into two groups - half with net worth above $836,033 and half with net worth below it.

Which tells me that
13.5% have net worth over $500,000
but only 6.75% have net worth over $836,033.

Medians allow me to divide between 18 classes instead of just 9.

[Squinch]

124. By categories, I mean the breakdowns into for example "below zero and above 500000"

Yes, you can add it up percentages within one of those breakdowns, but you can't add two or three of the percentages of those breakdowns together as you have until you have the numbers of households included in each of the breakdowns.

Because as I said: for example, the first breakdown has a higher percentage of poor women and a lower percentage of rich women. The last breakdown you included has a lower percentage of poor women and a higher percentage of rich women.

If there are two women in that first breakdown and 20 in the other one, the results are very different than they would be if there are 20 women in that first breakdown and 2 in the other one.

If each of these breakdowns is discrete from the others, and if we have the data from all 9 of the breakdowns, it should indeed add to the 100%. If the breakdowns are not discrete from the others, we would need to find the relative weight of each breakdown if we were going to add them up.

That being said, you are looking at some figures, and we are only looking at discrete parts of your source and your descriptions of the rest. Given that we are not seeing the same thing, we may very well be speaking different languages

[hfojvt]

142. probably these questions would be resolved

if you saw the table. edit - and some may be cleared up by my edit of post #33 where I think I explained things a little better than originally

The categories are discrete, although I have not always described them that way, for reasons of shorthand.

Of the nine categories, one being the poorest and nine being the wealthiest, I did match ups like this

1 vs. 9
2 vs. 8
3 vs. 7

then made a combination category

1+2+3 vs. 9+8+7
or P vs. W

where P = those with less than $10,000 of net worth
and W = those with more than $100,000 of net worth

in the raw data P is divided into 3 categories, which I also listed percentages for.
3 = less than $10,000 but more than $5,000
2 = less than $5,000 but more than zero
1 = less than zero

The percentages are all of the same group, either single women households, single men households or married couple households. As long as I stay in the same group I can add them up, because they have the same denominator.

Now if I tried to add percentages between groups, like adding the percentage of non wealthy females to the percentage of non wealthy males, I'd get a nonsense number because they don't have the same denominator.

[Squinch]

146. As you say, for a discussion I think we would both need access to the source.

[hfojvt]

152. well the link to 2011 has the same categories

the numbers are just a little bit different from 2002 to 2011 (the number of households with more than $500,000 in net worth went up quite a bit).

[Squinch]

156. OK, looking at the fourth link you referred me to, if we assume, as has been posited in this thread

that married people equally own all their assets, we can remove that category because presumably married men and women equally own their wealth. (I think that is very much up for discussion, but not here, so let's let it stand.)

So we look only at female-only and male-only heads of households.

I am seeing that the median value of assets for women householders is 22,184, (5,708 if you exclude the home). Median value of assets for men householders is 27,310, (8584 if you exclude the home).

Which says to me that the median male householder has more wealth than the median female householder.

The whole concept of "median" is problematic, because I think the erroneous statistic refers to some aggregate concept.

One thing interesting in the 2011 chart, though is the "over 65" number. Those who seem to subscribe to the "all the men will die and women will inherit their wealth" idea seem to be suggesting that women over 65 are much more wealthy and numerous than men.

This table doesn't say anything about how numerous the over 65 people are, but it DOES say that the median elder male is much more wealthy than the median elder woman: Men over 65 have a net worth of 130,000 (19,626 if you exclude the home). Women over 65 have a net worth of 104,000 (8,480 if you exclude the home).

[hfojvt]

158. the medians are in table 1

you want the little tab underneath for table 4.

That shows that there are 10.9 million female householders over age 65 compared to just 4.2 million male householders.

It also shows that a whopping 27.2% of those female over 65 households has over $250,000 in net worth. Compared to just 1.7% of female households under age 35. However, 21.3% also had less than $5,000 in net worth. But even that number is lower than the 27.2% of ALL households who had less than $5,000 in net worth.

[Squinch]

163. But it also shows that 19% of men over 65 are own more than 500,000, compared to 11%

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 04:41 PM - Edit history (3)

of women over 65.

You can see that the trend in those higher incomes is for men and women to be pretty even until you get to the very wealthy, when men take a big jump ahead.

And it shows that by both numbers and percentages (and pretty significantly by numbers, given that there are many more female headed households than male), women are over-represented in the poorest segments.


ETA: And now that I have the numbers in front of me, I see where you came up with the 55% number, but I am sorry, you misread the numbers:

Those percentages are in numbers of households in each segment, not the percentage of wealth owned by that segment. If you add all the percentages up you get 100% of the number of households, not 100% of the wealth.

You said that your 55% number required the assumption that all the households have equal assets, and that clearly isn't the case. All that says is that the two groups you selected make up 55% of the households (or more accurately, the number of female households plus half the number of married households.)

[Squinch]

47. I see your update, but before I go and look at those numbers, let me

address one of your points:

You say the vast majority of women get married and have some claim on their husband's assets. This is true. But it is also true that men have a claim on their wives' assets. So those two conditions cancel each other out. And having children take care of you in your old age if you don't have the money to do so is also true for both sexes, though possibly as you say, statistically more true for women, but that doesn't mean that you have more wealth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. "Cancel each other out???"

This is the worst application of illogic I've seen today.

a) women are poor
b) census data conservatively suggests that women have 56%, and given the state of wealth inequality, probably much more.
a) that doesn't mean anything, because married men get half the wife's assets when they marry.
b) ???

If you're starting from the basis that women are poor because they earn little (a reasonable hypothesis) when they marry, their net wealth would be expected to increase, right? When their husbands die they inherit that wealth. The reason for there being so many more single women than single men is that a large percentage of them are widows... who now have sole control of the family's wealth.

The fact that it doesn't mesh with your world-view doesn't make it inaccurate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. +100 n/t

[Squinch]

175. I think this deserves its own post: you misread the data in coming up with your 55.6% number.

Now that I have the numbers in front of me, I understand what you were saying, but I am sorry, it is inaccurate. You said:

As far as the total wealth owned by each gender, I find THIS interesting. If you assume that each household has an equal share of wealth and you can also figure that the women own half the wealth of the 59 million married couple households. Then women's share of the wealth would be (59/2 + 31.7)/110 = 55.6%

So 60% is perhaps NOT THAT unreasonable a guess.


What you have done here is simply added the number of female-headed households to half the number of married households and come up with the number 55.6%. The assumption that all the households have an equal share of the wealth is, of course, ridiculous.

[paulkienitz]

35. funny thing... I heard similar claims even back in the eighties!

[Squinch]

134. I found it as far back as 2002 on the net. In the MRA thread

that I linked, there was a funny statement to the effect that, "No, we can't find the source for this statistic, but it's been around a long time and that means it's truth is settled for those of us in the MRA."

[MrScorpio]

43. That's a bingo! nt

[Cryptoad]

45. Most Women outlive their Hubbies....... nt

[Squinch]

48. Women do live longer on average. Is there more that you wanted to say about that?

[Cryptoad]

50. No not really,,,, just one of the facts that skews the data ,,,nt

[Squinch]

55. In what way? And what data are we talking about? The point

is that there is no data that is backing up the claim.

[Cryptoad]

58. Data on wealth of any kind is hard to come by

I dont haveit,, you say you dont have it.. but it exist even if not collect yet, I am was just saying I agree with your argument and if and when someone claims this data to support that statement of Women having that much of the wealth, I am sure it would be skewed in some manner by the fact that Women out live Men and that transfer of wealth is not reflective of the inequality of true wealth of women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. So are you saying that wealth controlled by widows doesn't count?

That's an interesting way to make the facts support your argument.

[kcr]

74. Where is the backup to support your claim that wealth of widows is large enough to make

the 70% claim true?

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. Posts 33 and 59 for starters.

And as far as I know, the claim that the OP is trying to debunk is 60%... although it does appear to be somewhat mobile.

[kcr]

76. Okay, what am I missing?

Post 33 does not say that. Going to read post 59. Yep. Post 59 does not back up your claim either

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Post 33 uses wealth data from the census...

to show that it is at least 56%, and since wealth distribution is so non-linear, probably much, much higher.

[kcr]

78. In other words, it doesn't back up your claim n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. See post labeled "OP"? See the name next to it?

I didn't post the OP that claimed without providing any cites or evidence whatsoever, that women's control of 60% of US wealth couldn't possibly be true. It's gotta be some other number, like way, way lower. I dunno... maybe 20%.

Occam's razor? Maybe a simpler explanation for disbelief of the widely reported figure is the OP's own bias, and/or inability to use the google effectively.

It's dismaying that this is the kind of (unsubstantiated by definition) argument which brings recommends.

[kcr]

80. The earth is round. Gravity exists. The sun rises because the earth rotates.

If I don't cite those examples, does that mean I'm wrong?

I can google and instantly find stats that show the OP is right. Easy peasy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. The OP made a simple claim.

That 60% must be bullshit.

Her proof was... Umm... well, it appears that the proof was a gut feel because she'd seen the statistic in places she didn't approve of.

I'd like a more definitive analysis too, but 60% seems conservatively plausible (women own half of marital wealth and widows inherit it when the husband dies), and very much in line with the decade-old census data posted upthread.

Further, it's been known for decades that women make most of the purchasing decisions, which begs this question about money: "Is the power of money in acquiring it or spending it?"

[kcr]

86. She made a claim that is correct

The 60% number is a bullshit claim that has no basis in fact. You seem to want to argue otherwise. Well, feel free to offer up some facts that prove it. You're not the only one in this thread. But so far, no one can. Seems to me if this were true, it would take to about post 5 at best for someone to prove it for they would be very eager to do so I'd imagine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. I've posted lots of *evidence*.

and you demand facts for me to disprove her... what? It's not even a real claim, it's simply an accusation that someone else's estimate (US News and World Report's claim, to be precise) is wrong.

Well, since their statistic is now about 10 years out of date, it probably IS inaccurate. The figure is (since we're all pulling numbers out of our asses these days) plausibly more like 65% today.

The primary reason that we're never going to arrive at a conclusion about this discussion is because we can't all even agree on simple words like "control", "own" and "wealth".

The OP is claiming that she can prove something wrong without providing a correct, sourced, replacement.

This is absurd, it's Andy Kaufmann nuts.

[kcr]

90. Nothing you've posted backs it up

And yes. If you want to claim the MRA argument is actually factual, you should prove it is. If it's indeed factual, there should be evidence that says so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. One of my favorite links on the topic

Women now control 60% of the wealth: When will men stop oppressing us?

The unintentionally ironic is the best kind.

[kcr]

97. Hmm. Donna Rasile, wealth manager

It appears she was talking about spending. And you're going to use a question on Ask.com to gloat about irony? Really? No, excuse me, it was Yahoo answers. And someone in the comments points out that the info is inaccurate.

[intaglio]

108. And if you read hfojvt's post you will see he makes a large number of unsuported assumptions

It begins with the assumption that the heads of non-paired households hold the wealth within those households. Next is the bad use of the data regarding income in that broad spectrum bands do not reflect where in those bands the bulk of the male and female participants are.

Next your own quotation of Nielsen. Guess what? Income growth in a recession economy does not equate to wealth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. If so, conversely, there's no data backing up your counterclaim.

The fact that women live longer means that widows inherit the wealth and decide how it will be distributed upon their own death.

I doubt that Forbes, Nielsen and USN&WR are making up their statistics. In contrast, I don't see any evidence for your claim, which boils down to; "Nuh-uh!".

Not every inconvenient fact is a MRA conspiracy.

[boston bean]

114. And if they have sons, when they die 5 -10 years later at the age of 70-80 it goes to sons...

What point are you trying to make, that a bunch of 70-80 year old women are yielding the power over men and making their lives miserable and they do this on such a massive scale that it's part of a culture that harms men on a large scale?

[treestar]

84. they didn't earn it themselves

Most of the idea of women owning things come exactly from that. It should not "count" where they merely got it form their husbands. What matters is who earned it.

[boston bean]

115. yeah, when speaking of earning potential, we don't usually include inheritances.

[Squinch]

129. But I think the point holds even when you include those women who

inherit their husband's wealth, and those men who inherit their wives' wealth.

I think someone at some point made some sweeping assumption that the day would come when all the baby boom men were dead and all the baby women would have all their wealth. But that's not reality based. Some men will die, some women will die. Some men will leave wealth, some women will leave wealth. Unless some plague comes along and kills all men born after 1950, but no women born after 1950, it just doesn't make sense, even if you include inherited wealth.

[treestar]

139. If they inherit, they are still in control of it I suppose

Which could add to the number of women with wealth, though a few extremely wealthy widows putting it over 50% doesn't really mean women in general have advanced. And usually it is used just to support the widow in style, and is not a matter of using that money to influence things in general. The stats wouldn't necessarily prove any MRA point.

[madville]

127. That is a valid point

Both of grandmothers went from $0 to millionaires on paper when my grandfathers died and then they lived another 15-20 years. That scenario will fade away quickly though, people these days tend to jointly own accounts, property, debt, etc more and more. Not like decades ago when typically everything was in the husband's name and he was the sole income for a family.

[Squinch]

136. Most of the sources that seemed to be thinking about actual wealth, though, and not

about spending decisions, had run some numbers to say that the wealth would hit 60% by 2030, not that it was there now.

But they seemed to assume that all the men would die off at the same time, and as you point out, they didn't consider that the number of men inheriting from their wives will likewise increase as the years go on.

[niyad]

49. EVERYTHING the mra's say is idiocy.

[redqueen]

68. +1

[alp227]

51. And 73.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Oh, these MRAssholes would also like you to believe that...JEWS own (insert made up big scary number) percent of the US government, Hollywood, the banks, name sinister body here.

[Squinch]

56. No, seriously?

They're anti-Semitic too?

[LeftyMom]

57. "MRA idiocy" is redundant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. A) Then Ann Romney is penniless? B) The power of money is in spending it, not earning it.

It's not a myth.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html
http://www.supportingadvancement.com/vendors/canadian_fundraiser/articles/womens_affluence.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2010/07/28/women-making-economic-strides-and-not-slowing-down/

The numbers have been coming in steadily over the past few years, and there is no way to deny anymore that women are taking greater control of the U.S. economy (and much of the global economy) and doing it quietly and quickly.

For example, back in 2008, U.S. News and World Report released data telling us that women controlled 60% of the wealth in the United States. That figure was estimated to be approximately $10-$12 trillion. At the same time, U.S. News and World Report projected that women will control $22 trillion of all wealth in the United states by 2020. That’s just a decade away!

Considering data released in 2009 by The Nielsen Company revealed almost all income growth in the United States over the past 15-20 years came from women, that U.S. News and World Report projection shouldn’t be very shocking. The Small Business Administration has reported in recent years that women-owned businesses are far outpacing all other businesses in terms of growth. The bottom-line is that women are making their presence in the economy better known.


I’m a marketer by profession, and as a marketer, I’ve seen statistics and research reports for years telling us that women control the vast majority of all purchase decisions. Combine that decision-making power with the growing influence of women on the business side of the economy, and the stage is set for an interesting 10-20 years in front of us.

It also stands to reason. Women own half of marital assets, and due to their longer lifespans, inherit it when their husbands die.

[treestar]

83. If they inherited it from husbands, it should not count

for this concept of their owning it. they didn't earn it. That's the point. Those who just got it from husbands didn't do anything for hit. So that part is not relevant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. So Christy Walton doesn't control any wealth?

She inherited all of it from her father and husband.

[NoOneMan]

61. What percent of wealth do women actually own?

Never heard this thingy (so if its a talking point, its not a good one).

[redqueen]

64. Whoa... are you saying you've seen MRA talking points on DU?!

You know, someone might try to have you PPR'd for saying that, so you best watch your back!

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. ... and math too!!!!

To the ramparts, sisters!

[Squinch]

138. Unbelievably, I have!

[Vashta Nerada]

81. You're right.

According to the Forbes 400 Richest Americans list, there are only two women on the top ten (#6, Christy Walton and #8, Alice Walton) and on the top 20, there is the addition of #15, Jacqueline Mars. That's it. The rest are men.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Those poor wives.

We should take up a collection for Ms Gates and Ms Buffet, penniless victims they are.

[Vashta Nerada]

89. What is the point of your post?

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. Truly?

The point is that Liz Koch controls as much wealth as her husband Charles - about $18 billion.

Further, when he meets his end, she's statistically likely to inherit the other half.

[Vashta Nerada]

157. I'm pretty sure Liz Koch isn't listed with her husband for a reason.

She doesn't earn the money. Charles does.

[NoOneMan]

96. Recognizing this list of men as sole controllers just panders to the patriarchial norm

Under the law, their wives control as much of it as them. Why would feminists--or anyone else--push the false narrative that the man who brings home the bacon subsequently is alone entitled to it? Men and women in legal marriages split responsibilities and have an equal control over assets. The persons name on the paycheck is not king

[kcr]

99. It seems only one person in this thread is saying that.

Only one that I've seen. In fact, I think pointing out how much of it is inherited is important. Because crowing about how much wealth women control is pretty pointless when you consider how much of our wealth is actually controlled by a very tiny percent of the population. The vast majority of Americans control very little of it.

[kcr]

91. Yep. And even if you keep scrolling down the list, the overwhelming majority are men n/t

[Notafraidtoo]

94. I think Feminism is just too difficult for the average person to understand.

I don't find it complex or threatening in anyway as a male, the only thing that can explain peoples reaction to it is being too simple to understand as shown by many on this board, much like real science is far too difficult for average people, when something is to hard for adults to grasp than it has to start with very young children being nurtured culturally. This is going to be a very long battle but at least it is a just one.

[davidn3600]

95. It goes back to a Virginia Tech study back in 2011 according to this...

Virginia Tech even has it on their website...

It's then been repeated all over the place...

http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2

[kcr]

98. I wonder if that's where yahoo.answers got it n/t

[NoOneMan]

100. That doesn't look like an MRA talking point

Color me confused

[kcr]

104. It is confusing.

Why would the US Department of Education keep such stats? It doesn't seem that they do. That was the source that VTech claimed. But I couldn't find it there.

Anyway, the MRA think they're playing gotcha with it. But as I explained up thread, even if it were true, it doesn't matter because it's such a tiny percentage of the population. Women still face a greater threat of poverty.

[Nine]

116. I think the Dept. of Education is the source for only the first bullet point.

...the one about what percentage of degree seekers at each level are women.

The second bullet point is the statement, "Women control nearly 60 percent of the wealth in the United States." It is a simple statement with nothing to back it up.

http://www.wlp.givingto.vt.edu/wealth/index.html

People need to realize this is not a scientific study done at VTech. It's a marketing page for one of their giving programs. The page could have been created by anyone and is completely meaningless. So for Business Insider to write, "More women are taking the reins on their finances, holding 60 percent of all personal wealth and 51 percent of all stocks in the U.S., according to Virginia Tech," is highly misleading.

http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2

If this is indeed the source of the claim, it's a pretty hilarious illustration of how bad info gets around. Some marketing person creates a web page with a dubious, unsourced claim. Then some lazy business writer takes that marketing page as a reliable source and attributes the phony stat to VTech as if it were some sort of rigorous study done there. Then a gajillion other people start spreading the phony stat around. I really hate when people treat infographics as anything more than they are - statements with pretty pictures to go along with them. The statements can be true or false just like anything else you read, but because they've been put in professional looking graphic, people think they're more real or reliable.

[kcr]

120. Okay, that makes sense

I noticed that everywhere I've seen it, there's no source.

[Squinch]

166. Very well said.

[Squinch]

122. It wasn't really VATech saying it. It was the marketing company "MarketingZeus"

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

who used it to make the point that marketing should be aimed at women because women, as I say in the OP, do control household spending decisions.

They seem to have just picked up the old misreading of the statistic equating household spending to wealth and used it in a handout they gave to VA Tech. There is no study to back it up, and it certainly is not coming from VATech research.

ETA: I think this actually was a brochure commissioned by their endowment group to encourage more giving to the school's endowment fund. I might be wrong about that, though.

[Squinch]

121. VA Tech didn't create this. MarketingZeus did, and used that wording in

literature that seems to have ben used by the VA Tech endowment fund. It is being used to describe that women often control the household purse strings and decide on charitable giving. This is consistent with what I said in the OP. Women do make household spending decisions, and as I mentioned, marketing companies like to point that out.

VA Tech, though, did not create this pamphlet, MarketingZeus did. It is not a product of any new study, and like all the other places making this claim, it gives no source for the information.

It seems to have used the old statistical misreading about consumer spending equaling wealth. I will grant, though, that the attachment of VA Tech's name to the old statistical misreading did create a new round of usage of an old statistical misreading.

[cinnabonbon]

111. Excellent post

K/R

[etherealtruth]

128. "...they're (women) earning less working the exact same jobs."

http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/on-equal-pay-day-women-still-make-77-cents-to-mens-dollar


"Nationwide, women continue to make just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men---and less than 40 percent of that can be explained away by "choices" such as staying home to take care of children and family members, extra time spent running errands and doing household chores, job experience, occupation, and union status. "


"And women aren't just earning less than men overall; they're earning less working the exact same jobs. A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research concluded that nationally men earn more in nearly every occupation, even those where a majority of positions are held by women. Of the 20 jobs most commonly held by women, women earned more than men in just one---bookkeeping, where women earn 100.3 percent of what men earn. The pay disparity starts right at the beginning of a woman's career. According to a recent study by the American Association of University Women, recent female college graduates made just 80 percent of their male counterparts' salaries. "

[Squinch]

130. +1

[boston bean]

131. I was at a job for three years and accidentally found out that a single, just out of college male

was earning significantly more than I. Doing the same EXACT job.

[etherealtruth]

135. I had that experience, as well

Despite the protestations of a few, we (women) generally know this to be true

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/female-grads-earn-82-cents-dollar-male-peers/story?id=17552227

[xulamaude]

159. Same thing happened to me except

that I had 'managerial' duties and a professional certification on top of it, and I was being paid roughly 40% (!) less.

Plus I had a partner and child to support - you know, the excuse that is often made for paying men more...

Anyway, they (constructively) fired me for calling them on it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

140. Guess I'm frequenting all the right corners of the intertubes

I've never seen that claim until reading this OP.

[boston bean]

145. If most women do not control the wealth and more men than women do,

then obviously the statistic is false.

One is focusing on the amount of dollars while the other is rightly focusing on the number of persons.

It's a slight of hand.

[Squinch]

147. But I haven't found anything to support that

women have more dollars either. They control 60% of household spending decisions, but they don't own more wealth.

[boston bean]

149. I agree, I was just trying to show how they try to make it seem valid.

You gotta box them in.

They throw the stat out in one discussion and muddy the waters and try to make it seem confusing.

It's easy to say well, the Queen of England controls a lot of wealth. And there are women millionaires/billionaires, and put together they have a lot of wealth, and that means they control it.

When in conversation most people are trying to make the point most that out of men and women, more men control wealth than women. Not the aggregate total of the amount of money a tiny percentage of women hold.

ie, men make more money, men are in more powerful positions where they can influence wealth, more men are in politics....

[Squinch]

150. Yes, that is an interesting addition:

Women make 60% of the decisions about what socks and TV's and peanut butter to buy. But a body made up of primarily men decides whether we will spend our collective dollars on B2 bombers or education.

So "controlling wealth" is very much open to interpretation.

[boston bean]

154. Yes, and it is done to confuse the issue and make it seem like there is no disparity.

Unfortunately, many fall for it.

[etherealtruth]

148. By design

It confuses the issues as it was intended to do.

[Squinch]

151. Though I still don't see any sources

of information that support the claim.

(I am missing some replies to the thread, so it is possible someone I have on ignore has found the holy grail of women's riches. If so, let me know.)

[etherealtruth]

153. I haven't either

The entire thing is designed to confuse issues and attempt to discount wage and power disparity

[Starry Messenger]

155. They get away with saying that because anti-women bigotry is normalized here on DU.

[boston bean]

162. won't get any disagreement from me on that point!

Hi Starry! Hope all is well with you!

[Starry Messenger]

164. Nice to see you too, BB!

[Iggo]

160. Even if it was true...

...it's still not an excuse to hate women.

[Squinch]

161. This is very true.

[snot]

165. What is an "MRA"?

[GeorgeGist]

170. Acronym for a group called Men's Rights Activists.

I.E. - A bunch of whiny pedantic morons that think there is some vast Illuminati feminist conspiracy while seemingly ignoring the fact that their own gender runs the majority of the world.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

[GeorgeGist]

168. Who buys the politicians?

[Egalitarian Thug]

169. Supporting links here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024236830

[Squinch]

171. Thank you! Good find by Cerridwen.

[Major Nikon]

174. Forbes says it comes from US News and World report data

http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2010/07/28/women-making-economic-strides-and-not-slowing-down/

If it's an MRA myth, someone should probably tell the Women in Leadership and Philanthropy program at Virginia Tech

http://www.wlp.givingto.vt.edu/wealth/