Why Are Women Part Of The 99%?

[Playinghardball]

Source: MoveOn.org

[Scout]

1. uh oh, now you've done it n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Right on, Sister!!

[FarCenter]

3. Women make up a significant part of the 1% in the United States

Even if the property is titled in the husband's name, wives have a claim on the property if they divorce. California has more individuals with assets >$30 million than any other state, and it is a community property state.

Women live longer than men, and there are many rich widows that have inherited the family wealth or are beneficieries during the remainder of their lives of tax-avoidance trusts that pass assets to children indirectly.

[DURHAM D]

4. I don't think you could miss the point any further.

Sorry your x-wife got some of what you thought was all yours.

:nopity:

[izquierdista]

6. Here's a picture of one

And the article to go along with it: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/231870/20111015/wal-mart-heiress-alice-walton-dwi-arrest-jail-arrested-texas-rozzell-alcohol-drunk-intoxicated.htm
She might even be in the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1%.

[FarCenter]

13. Her sister Christy Walton of Jackson, WY is even richer

Christy is worth $24.5 billion, while Alice, of Fort Worth, TX is worth only $20.9 billion.

Brothers Jim and Robson of Bentonville, AR are each worth over $20 billion.

All winners in the inheritance lottery.

[yewberry]

17. Would it make sense if I posted photos of women in poverty?

You know, women, those people who are more likely to be living in poverty than men?

http://mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa10/popchar/pages/104wp.html


How do you think posting pictures of wealthy women enhances your argument?

[FarCenter]

21. The implication of the OP subject line and image was that women make up little of the 1%

When actually, women are probably half of the 1%.

How would posting pictures of women in poverty substantiate that women are only a small part of the 1%?

Most women are part of the 99%, but then so are most men. The 1%/99% issues is not a gender issue.

[yewberry]

28. I'd say that's quite a stretch.

The OP makes reference to women being part of the 99%, and does not support your inference. Women are more likely to live in poverty and less likely to be among the super-rich; thus, the OP is correct that women are part of the 99%.

Also, your supposition that women make up 'probably' half of the 1% is not supported. Taking a quick look at the Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans, it looks to be closer to ten to one, at least among the top 100.

Most people are part of the 99%, regardless of gender. However, I don't think it's wrong to include this aspect of institutionalized inequity in the discussion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. The wealthy men on the Forbes list don't have wives?

This isn't a gender issue.

[yewberry]

38. Did you seriously just post that?

I suppose that the (vastly smaller number of) wealthy women on the list have husbands, too.

Are you suggesting that institutionalized inequity is worthy of protest only when it affects white men, too?

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Of course I did.

Melinda Gates, Astrid Menks and Elizabeth Koch are all wealthy.

[Merlot]

44. Not true:: "women are probably half of the 1%"

Just look at how women are represented in the Senate, and Congress.

Look at how few women are top CEO's, or even mid level.

Look how many women are in boardrooms.

Being a spouse of someone with a lot of money does not count - it's the power that goes with the money that those women will not see. They lead rich lives, but like the mafia, they are in for life.

[Exultant Democracy]

47. Do you doubt that the members of the 400 richest families are about 50% female?

[Demstud]

49. And what percentage of those females actually control the wealth of their family?

Regardless of how complicit they are in their husbands' accumulation of vast wealth, they often don't control it or make the big decisions. Saying that they MIGHT get control of 50% in the case of divorce (but don't forget how many wealthy men would have pre-nups when marrying) or that they would inherit the money is clearly not the same as controlling the wealth.

[Demstud]

50. Also it's pretty irrelevant anyway

It's irrelevant because how 50% of the 1% live has no bearing on the facts about how the women in the rest of the 99% (who make up 50% or more of our population) are actually treated in comparison to their male counterparts.

[Exultant Democracy]

51. Ask Newt how much control Callista has, as someone pointed out

women actually do control the majority of house hold spending in America. Either way I think the "who has control" question is a canard with little or no bearing to this. The fact is the fab 400 has so much money that they just shovel it out to themselves without much care.

The basic point being that these 400 male or female have more in common with each other then with the rest of us. Making this a gendered issue only serves to muddy the message and divide us.

[Demstud]

53. Control of household income pales in comparison

with the amount of money controlled by CEO's in male dominated boardrooms. Yes, there are many women who in effect control the household spending. But it's still entirely dependent on what her husband brings home, and how much control the husband chooses to give her. I don't think marrying rich should be treated the same think as rising through the ranks and becoming CEO of a major corporation. The simple fact is, when you have women with jobs bringing home less than male counterparts, and pay that is mostly controlled by men, it's hard not to turn it into a gender issue.

[Exultant Democracy]

54. Divide and Conquer, your doing the 1% work for them. You would abandon the 99% for the 51%

bad math and worse political strategy.

It really really doesn't matter if it is the husband or the wife who is the CEO raking in cash they are both living high on the hog in the gated communities. The primary message of OSW has been we are the 99%. When you start making this a gendered issue you in effect say that we are not the 99% but whatever percentage of the population that your particular group belongs too.

OWS would be equally doomed if all the African Americans involved said by the way this 12% of the 99% should also get reparations. Being part of a 99% movement means that we have to set aside some of our pet issues to work together on something that we agree on as a collective.

[Shandris]

25. Something to notice.

In 2008, nearly 40 million people in the United States lived with incomes below the poverty level.1 More than 15 million of those were women aged 18 and older, accounting for 13.0 percent of the adult female population. In comparison, 9.6 percent of adult men lived in poverty (data not shown)

This is a quote from the article's opening lines. Assuming a roughly 50-50 split of population...


X * 13% (.13)=15,000,000
Divide both sides by .13
X=115,384,615

So the population base that they're drawing the statistics from is 115,384,615 women, which we've assumed as a 50/50 ratio. This means there is an equal number of men.

115,384,615 * 9.6% (.096) = Y (Number of Men 18+ in Poverty)
Y = 11,076,923

So we have 11 million men in poverty and 15 million women. But wait...it says that 40 million were in poverty. Those totals together only equal 26 million people. So where are the other 14 million?

(....were women aged 18 and older...)

Ah. I see. They are children.

You see, your link includes children in its' aggregate statistics. But how likely is, say, two brothers going to have children to deal with? Compared to a single mother? Not very likely AT ALL. So yes...women are more likely to live in poverty because they are much more likely to have children to provide care for. What am I driving at? Nothing in particular, other than to point out that this is most certainly NOT a simple 'women end up in poverty more because they are paid less' canard. There are LAYERS of social reasons why this happens, and those LAYERS are why women are, and should be, part of the 99%.

[redqueen]

27. That's 45% of adult women vs 9% of adult men. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

22. An aberration or the norm?

An aberration or the norm?

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Women control 51.3% of the wealth.

Logically, the top 1% are more than half women.

[yewberry]

29. Please cite your source.

And your logic is fuzzy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. .

PBS
book "Marketing to women"
book "The She Spot"
Boston Consulting group
Galbraith management consultants
National association of women business owners

[yewberry]

32. Interesting,

It seems that all of these works cite the same source - a Federal Reserve report from 2007 - but I can't actually see the report in any of these cases. What am I missing?

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. "Missing the point."

Is it a virtue to make up any kind of bullshit and then discount critics for missing the point? Do facts have a well known bias?

Women control most of the wealth in the US, for many of the reasons the person to whom you replied noted.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2007.htm

[redqueen]

26. Could you please provide something more than a link to that page.

Which PDF, which table, page number... whatever hints you'd deign to share would be appreciated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. See post 30 n/t

[redqueen]

34. More links to lengthy pieces.

I guess you're not interested in communicating anything specific, so thanks anyway, but I don't have the time or inclination to sift through all that in order to find the proof to back up your claims.

[yewberry]

36. Actually, I was finally able to view the Fed report in question.

I searched it and couldn't find the data this poster is referring to.

[redqueen]

40. That's one of my pet peeves.

If someone cites a specific claim, especially something as specific number, I like to know where that number came from, and expect that the information shouldn't be too hard to cite.

Failure to provide the source causes me to be highly suspicious, and view any future claims made by that person with more skepticism than usual.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Where were the skeptics when the OP was posted?

Funny.

I would have thought that the "women own less than 1% of the property" OP would have merited some degree of similar scrutiny.

I provided a half dozen books, news sites, foundations and articles to back "51.3%". I would have preferred a primary source. The statistic appears to be based on meta analysis of the federal reserve data for the book "The She Spot".

[eridani]

42. As one newspaper heiress said, "It just passes through my uterus"

The graph is about the world, and includes unpaid labor in subsistence agriculture and manufacturing necessities at home.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. That wasn't the question.

I have no doubt that there are very many poor women, but that wasn't the claim.

The claim is that less than 1% of property is under the control of women. That's obviously false and fails under even the most cursory analysis.

[eridani]

55. Almost no women in undeveloped countries own property

They are the world's majority, not American women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. There is almost no "property" in undeveloped countries. n/t

[eridani]

58. Wrong. Land farmed for subsistence by women is owned by men n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. What's it worth? n/t

[eridani]

60. The original stat counts land, not dollar value

The world's poor majority is female, and most of them don't live in the US.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. land is measured in acres. "property" is measured in dollars. n/t

[eridani]

63. Right. Those whose free labor and marginal land are regarded as "worthless"

--are just disposable human garbage, and they are by a large majority female. NOT! That was the point of the OP.

To clarify--if you raise tomatoes and sell them to someone you are working and what you do has value. If you feed them to your family, you aren't working and what you do has no value. BULLSHIT!

[FarCenter]

14. Still married to wife number one

[WinkyDink]

20. I think you mean she is still married to you.

[Earth_First]

5. Snacks here!!! Get your fresh popped snacks here!

:popcorn:

[WinkyDink]

18. Operative term: "in the husband's name."

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. So?

Are you suggesting you don't really own your husband's house?

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Cool. Bullshit, but cool.

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/stop-that-feminist-viral-statistic-meme/

Seriously. Do you seriously think that women own 1% of the wealth?

Women control 51.3% of the wealth in the US.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2007.htm

[Avalux]

9. The graphic says WORLD, not the US.

Probably accurate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Uh, no. Probably not.

"Probably" in the sense that pigs probably don't fly.

[Avalux]

16. Ha ha!

I read your link....interesting. Of course that graphic will get more attention than the facts. ;-)

[LanternWaste]

19. self-delete

self-delete

[Demstud]

52. So...

What are world wide statistics? I don't know about "1%" but it's plausible that it's an extremely low number considering how women are treated around the rest of the world. Women are little more than slaves in a significant number of countries around the world, and are still openly traded in arranged marriages in our most populated nations such as China, India, and Russia despite progress on women's rights.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Dunno. It's not my OP. However, the north american net worth is 35% of the total.

Unless women have zero wealth anywhere else in the world, AND control less than 3% here, the OP is bullshit.

[IndyPragmatist]

10. Which is why I consider Moveon.org to be equal to Fox News

Confirmation bias is strong with most people. I'm sure I'll get attacked for this.

[MH1]

15. Moveon.org doesn't claim to be a NEWS organization

Huge difference right there.

[county worker]

11. For us guys and gals who have women partners, what ever is good for them is good for us.

If my wife is underpaid and that is corrected, we have more family income.

When ever a minority gains rights those rights are either already present for the majority or will be give to the majority as a by product.

[KansDem]

33. I never quite understood this...

Spending the bulk of my careers in either education or public service, there was no difference in what I was paid and what a female colleague was paid. When applying for a position, men and women candidates received the same salary schedule along with the same description of the benefits. We all got what the schedule stated based on our education, expertise, and experience.

Now, I understand things are different in the corporate world, where, as I hear it, "the good ol' boy" system still dominates. But that's precisely the point of the 99%. Women who are paid less than men for the same education and skills are recipients of 1% "logic."

So, "yes," women are part of the 99% (and getting screwed by the 1%)...

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Gender issues venn diagram

[eridani]

43. If you were a woman in Africa doing most of the work of subsistence agriculture

--water & wood gathering, etc., you'd understand better. Unpaid work is still WORK, and world-wide, women do most of it.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Raising children automatically makes you poorer, and if you do it alone, you are really poor.

If men were just as likely to be single parents, they would be just as poor.

The real point isn't that women are in the 99%. It's that the women in the 99% are close to the bottom of that group. The face of poverty in America is often a child's face. And most children have a mother, too, and she gets to enjoy the same poverty.

[southerncrone]

46. This is the mortal sin of our species.

Things will never improve until this inequality is brought into balance.

[TheKentuckian]

62. I think this thread is off the key focus. All that matters is we are the 99% and they are the one.

Men and women are the 99% and men and women are the 1% and it would make no difference to me what the make up of the top 1% is. They could all be lesbian, Inuit, and Krishna.

You don't have to explain why any group is the 99%, they aren't in the 1%.

There is some crucial information in the little blurb but it is essentially superfluous to being in the 99%, what ethnic, gender, orientation, or religious block isn't?

Women at full parity would still be the 99%, unless they are the 1%.