 
SearchFemiStatsWomen to men
157.2 million
The number of females in the United States as of Oct. 1, 2010. The number of males is 153.2 million.
Source: US Census Bureau
Earnings, women to men
$36,278
The median annual earnings of women 15 or older who worked year-round, full time, in 2009, up 1.9 percent from $35,609 in 2008 (after adjusting for inflation). Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men, unchanged for several years running.
Source: US Census Bureau
Education, women to men
35%
Percentage of women 25 to 29 who had obtained a bachelor's degree or more as of 2009, which exceeded that of men in this age range—27%.
55%
Percentage of college students in fall 2008 who were women.
58%
Percentage of women 25 to 29 who held advanced degrees in 2009, which exceed that of men in this age range—42%.
Source: Educational Attainment in the United States: 2009
Political representation, women to men 112th Congress
16.8%
Percentage of women in Congress.
17
Number of women out of 100 U.S. Senators
74
Number of women out of 435 U.S. Representatives. (3 are Delegates) (Of the 74 women in the House, 50 are Democrats, including the 3 Delegates, and 24 are Republicans. Of the 17 women serving in the Senate, 12 are Democrats and 5 are Republicans.)
Source: Congressional Research Service
Rapes or sexual assault against women, 2007
248,300
The majority of US citizens are women; Women are more highly educated in the U.S; Women are continually paid less--by almost 25 percent--than men. Despite a vast pipeline of women in the professional workforce, they are relegated to non-alpha positions. Women are given miniscule representation in government even as they are the majority of the population. Women are largely relegated (most often by so-called progressives) to represent only Democrats in Congress. A staggering national assault occurs daily against women’s bodies with scant attention paid by male-dominated media.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice
More FemiStats Links
Must Reads!
Barbara Ehrenreich: beware of Obot women and your healthThursday, December 3, 2009 at 12:00 pm — admin
 Barbara Ehrenreich wrote this during the primaries about Hillary Clinton:
Oh beware, all women, of Obots XXers who embraced the Hate for Hillary--they will deceive you in the most despicable way! (Also, Beware the more stingy Obot women who just sneered that women were too “shrill” or to mom-like to trust with a vote, ala’ Courtney Martin anti-feminist.) Now back to Barbara Enrenrich. Yesterday in Salon she
Warning, any women who sneers at women who advocate for breast screening as wanting their tits squeezed is a RED FLAG of an Obot woman! Such a woman will not be working in the female best interest I can assure you. This red flag comes to horrible fruition soon! (see below!) Regarding the outcry, Enrenrich maybe referring to the Gallop poll that found that 76% of women disagree with the new govt. panel’s recommendations for reduced screening for all women from age 40 to 74. The poll also found that 76% of women thought cost motivated the panel’s results. Enrenrich couldn’t be more condescending in her essay. But WORSE, far worse and much more dangerous is this statement by Enrenrich:
Oh we saw the RED FLAG of female hate coming, but this is a doosy! FemiSex has not touched this topic (breast cancer /gvt panel)for a myriad of reasons, but this can’t be left to stand. Facts must not be distorted by hateful Obot women. The government task force was unequivocal about the fact the breast cancer screening of women in their 40s does save lives: in fact the report did a meta-analysis of many randomized studies and declared that breast cancer screening decreases mortality for women in their 40s by 15%. Now, I say to women: This has been reported all over the country the past two weeks. Some outlets downplay the lives saved others upplay them. But to have the Audacity of Hate to lie to women, to tell them screening women in their 40s has no benefit in terms of lives saved is not only wrong: it is evil. To knowingly lie about health risks to women is evil. Barabara Ehrenreich, you are no feminist. If fact, you are downright frightening as a voice for women. Ehrenreich surely wants universal health care of Obama, but look what she is willing to do to get there. http://www.salon.com/life/2009/12/02/womens_health/index.html http://www.gallup.com/poll/124463/women-disagree-new-mammogram-advice.aspx |
|
Comments
rather than squeeze my tits,
rather than squeeze my tits, how about kiss my butt, Barbara.
this is a real low in her career, I am sorry to say.
I was deeply troubled by Ms.
I was deeply troubled by Ms. Ehrenreich's phrasing "sqeeze our tits."
In 2008 I woke up to the liberal journalist's internal conflicts over their sex. Such internal disrespect. You call it outward sneering at women. I say Ehrenreich is showing her own self-loathing as a member of the female sex. Her article is full of disrespect for women.
She wants advancement for cancer treatment. All of us do! It's just that I see no reason to make fun of women who have to live in the world of medical progress where it is today. In my view, her article is brimming with contempt for women, especially to say we are yelling "squeeze our tits" as overly hysterical women.
Senator Mikuiski's amendment attempts to assure women of access to breast screenings. I wonder if Ms. Ehrenreich will now direct her contempt at Mikulski as the "squeeze our tits Senator from Maryland" ??
I worry that PG has taken to
I worry that PG has taken to heart fallacious writing by Ehrenreich.
That is exactly the danger. Admin is one-hundred percent correct that Dr. Love is NOT a source for denying benefit to screening for women in their 40s. Love ONLY agrees with the Task Force. The Task Force holds that the lives saved (15% decreased risk of death for women who are screened) are not enough to outweigh the excess biopsies as a result of that screening. Dr. Love doesn't say screening lacks benefits. Ehrenreich says that, wholly unsupported by any evidence, and ignoring the task force findings of benefit.
Hi PG- first off, BE blames
Hi PG-
first off, BE blames women not Obama for the reversal of abortion rights!
That is classic BE. Protection of her man.
Her complaint was not aimed at Obama but: "the female response ranged from muted to inaudible," says BE.
She has no harsh words for Obama. NOT one! She lashes out at women!
Her claim that women didn't raise a fuss: utter hogwash. ( I say women were less valuable than they shoule be and that's why I sent Hirshman's link!
see above. )
But,
Women who are not Obot women have responded with vigor in excoriating Mr. Obama for organizing this coup arranged by Obama and the Church. Obot women focus their anger on, as BE does, other women, or Republicans--moot to the issue, in reality. Dems got the deal done with Obama calling the play. Obama organized this at Kennedy's funeral and the church official wrote as much on his blog.
So Ehrenreich begins her article by complaining about ....not Obama, at all but ....screwy women who don't kick up a fuss.!
Next
you say the handful BE names equals "all hell broke loose!" ?
Really?
4 celebs and a handful of picketers is hell breaking loose?
I had to go wide to find all hell breaking. The Gallop poll seems to reach that level, but subjective I guess. Maybe the passage of Mikulski amendment today that inks screening for all comers regardless of age. Kinda hits all hell breaking loose esp with a price tag of ~ one trillion buckerroos! But that came after BE wrote her piece.
Re BE's breast cancer: she went for screening and opted for treatment. I am pretty sure she still screens. nuff said. that's her biz. lying to other women about benefits of screening ..that is our duty to set the record straight!
The point to not stray from is her big fat fabrication!
you say:
"Her sources on the cost-benefit analysis of mammography for women under 50 ...."
PG this is important.
THERE IS NO SOURCE! NONE! ZERO.
SHE HAS NO SOURCE that says
"Routine mammographic screening of women under 50 DOES NOT reduce breast cancer mortality in that group..."
She pulled that out of thin air!
NO Source. Love doesn't say it and no reputable MD in this grand US will tell you that rountine Routine mammographic screening of women under 50 does not reduce breast cancer mortality in that group.
IT DOES!
BE is BS!
And lets be very clear that endorsing guidelines is very different from lying about what the data show.
You can look at the data and say Ok, sure this risk/bene works for me, but to lie and say no lives are saved is very very very very troubling.
Women First, politics second!
BE down the toliet!
To write that women are being pushed into surgery is troubling and may lead to women distrusting their MDs. YOu are implying that an MD thought gee what a great way to make money, I shall lie to this young woman and lumpectomy her just for that new car with 4-wheel drive, when in fact is is the sad-sack BE who is lying to women for her own agenda!
Women first on this site!
Ehrenreich begins her article
Ehrenreich begins her article by complaining about something that Democrats and Obama have acceded to: "When the House of Representatives passed the Stupak amendment, which would take abortion rights away even from women who have private insurance, the female response ranged from muted to inaudible."
So your claim, that she just goes along with whatever Obama/Dems do though it threatens women's health, is refuted by the very article you're discussing.
You say, "Regarding the outcry, Enrenrich maybe referring to..." but there is no need to speculate on what outcry Ehrenreich is talking about. She is very specific with her examples: "all hell broke loose. Sheryl Crow, Whoopi Goldberg, and Olivia Newton-John raised their voices in protest; a few dozen non-boldface women picketed the Department of Health and Human Services." Why would you speculate when she tells us exactly what she means?
Her sources on the cost-benefit analysis of mammography for women under 50 includes, as cited in the article: "Dr. Susan Love, author of what the New York Times dubbed "the bible for women with breast cancer," endorses the new guidelines along with leading women’s health groups like Breast Cancer Action, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the National Women’s Health Network (NWHN). For years, these groups have been warning about the excessive use of screening mammography in the U.S., which carries its own dangers and leads to no detectible lowering of breast cancer mortality relative to less mammogram-happy nations."
So Ehrenreich definitely is not a woman who disregards what other women have to say. She's also a woman who HAS HAD BREAST CANCER HERSELF, and who due to her experiences with the for-profit medical system has become increasingly skeptical about how women are pushed into surgery. If you're not aware of this issue, I highly recommend reading up on the massive increase in C-sections and the history of doctors' pushing unnecessary radical mastectomies and hysterectomies.
"What we really need is a new women’s health movement, one that’s sharp and skeptical enough to ask all the hard questions: What are the environmental (or possibly life-style) causes of the breast cancer epidemic? Why are existing treatments like chemotherapy so toxic and heavy-handed? And, if the old narrative of cancer’s progression from "early" to "late" stages no longer holds, what is the course of this disease (or diseases)? What we don’t need, no matter how pretty and pink, is a ladies’ auxiliary to the cancer-industrial complex."
Mammograms are an imperfect
Mammograms are an imperfect test. I don't think we should wait for a perfect test to come along before we use the imperfect test. Isn't that the nature of medicine, steady improvements.
Ehrenreich is a disgrace.
She would sell her mother's soul to the devil for her Dreamboat Boyfriend Fantasy, h/t Janis!
I think that he is a person of color is a big part of the fantasy. She might never date him on account of his skin color but look at how enlightened she is to support a black man over white women.
hi folks, I want to thank a
hi folks, I want to thank a reader for sending the link to Ehrenreich's story. She said a patient had sent it to her. So the catch is hers! Also, when I went to Salon I found this very good piece by Linda Hirshman that I hope you will check out!
I did a quick read and loved it. I find it funny, one women delights in female activism and another finds it noisome. Curious indeed.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/story/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/20...
This women is skidding out of
This women is skidding out of control. Salon should issue a correction immediately! Hack if they don't; Hack that they allowed such a statement in the first place.
No matter if you agree or disagree about the issue of over treatment of breast cancer, to state something that is patently false is corrosive and as you say, evil if Ehrenrich wrote this knowing she was flat out wrong.
I must agree that her motivation must be to salvage health care reform as women worry they will be called on for rationing. Chilling. I want reform but what will happen to research if the country is flat bust!
This statement by Barbara
This statement by Barbara Ehrenreich scares me. How many women will believe her and not go for their screenings. She actually has done something pretty extreme here. Rather than talk about risk and benefit she has falsely said there is no benefit! When I think about this I start to steam. She is using her perch to willfully disseminate falsehoods and that means that the women is willing to have blood on her hands for the sake of politics.
I hate that thought and I have lost all respect for Ehrenreich! There is no place in this discussion for lies. If women are to make informed choices they need to understand Both the proven benefits and the theoretical harms.
Distressing. I can't imagine
Distressing. I can't imagine why she would flush her credibility on this, but I strongy suspect she is terrified women will back off supporting Obama's health reforms if they suspect women who are currently insured will be put upon to realized the savings needed to cover the indigent and uninsured.
I thank you for bring this to light. It is important for women to get an unambiguous example of Obama Girl machinations! Social justice should not set some women back so others can advance. That is simply not justice.
Ehrenreich is trading her own
Ehrenreich is trading her own credibility for.... what? The chance to cozy up with an administration that gives not a damn about her or any other of the breasted half of the population??
What, exactly, are these "Feminists" gonna do for a living once they burn their creds on the alter of Obama? Maybe Barbara will be old enough to retire.... or maybe she is being paid enough to lie that she won't have to worry??
Unbelievable....
Women like Ehrenreich and
Women like Ehrenreich and even the once-venerable Gloria Steinem are why I can't join in TOO enthusiasticalyl about the blamefest on younger women that's all the rage nowdays. I do think they're stupid, but msotly because all young people tend to be.
But the older idiots who got sucked into the Dreamboat Boyfriend Fantasy are far worse. They should have known better, and they betrayed everything they worked for for decades. I saw PLENTY of middle-aged women who should have had the sense to know better get suckered last year. Stupid is not in short supply in the human race, and there's always more than enough to go around for everybody.
thank you for spotting this!
thank you for spotting this! this is a zinger from Ehrenriech for sure. it is as if she did not read one bit of the task force report or the dozens of news article that say that mortality is reduced.
off topic but in the general ballpark
and excellent opinion piece
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/03/2009-12-03_medicare_cuts_...
flat out true and should be required reading!
OMG! There is so much to be
OMG! There is so much to be said about this issue and most of the things I've read just border on naive or zealous. (One Blogher writer actually picked a number out of her butt (every 5 yrs for women in 40s and suggested that to her readers!) OMG! too foolish to address really.
But B.E. has gove over the top! I am truly shocked to see this so-called icon of feminism write such a deceptive story. I can only conclude she fears this breast screening will derail health care reform. You are 100% spot on. Ehrenreich has gone over the top and down the slipper slope of trading off women for her Obot agenda--an agenda that puts women under the bus big time!
Post new comment