It’s now a badge of honour to be seen as blatantly promoting women ahead of men. The papers of the past few days have been full of female-friendly budget leaks after claims the economy is some sort of sexist beast. Scotty from Marketing is naturally keen to respond to the carefully manufactured narrative that the government has a “women’s problem.”
Preparing the groundwork for this week’s gravy train for women to women was a recent report produced by The Grattan Institute, which claimed the Covid crisis had a far more adverse impact on employment of women than men. Their report was naturally lapped up by much of the media, which revelled in talk of a “pink recession”, claiming women’s economic progress had stalled in the shadow of Covid, that women were more likely to lose their jobs, and working hours than men.
One of my correspondents has done an excellent job with his own analysis of Grattan’s work, revealing a fresh interpretation of publicly available which contradicts all their major conclusions. Read his detailed report here.
The key finding from the Institute was at peak Covid in April, almost 8 per cent of Australian women had lost their jobs whilst the figure for men was 4 per cent.
My learned correspondent explains this massaged result was achieved using an apples versus oranges comparison, comparing women at the bottom of the recession to figures for men from an earlier period. The data misleadingly included only employed women not all women and people who resigned jobs as well as those who lost them. It’s a classic example of the point well made in the book, How to lie with Statistics: “If you can’t prove what you want to prove, demonstrate something else and pretend they are the same thing.” That’s just what the Grattan Institute has done.
All the major claims made by Grattan in this paper are wrong in his analysis of their work. It is not true that more women than men lost jobs and lost hours of work during this period. The true figures are readily available from ABS data and show it was mostly men not women who lost their jobs in this period: 2.6 % of women lost their job in the quarter ending May 2020 versus 2.9 % of men.
Look at this graph showing change in underemployment, which includes all employed workers who aren’t getting as much work as they would like. It’s very clear that it is mainly men who are missing out on employment. Since November women have been better off in terms of underemployment than they were pre-Covid whereas men are only now back to pre-Covid levels.
All the details are there in the full report – information readily available to those in the know. But naturally the narrative promoted by Grattan has rarely been publicly challenged.
(I’d welcome more exposés of this sort – it’s wonderful having a growing team of nerds to help throw a few spanners in the relentless feminist machine misrepresenting the true picture of men and women’s lives in this country.)
But here’s one I stumbled over all on my own, sitting in a gynaecologist’s waiting room where only reading material available due to Covid fearmongering was a lone copy of the St Vincent Clinic Foundation research report.
Flicking through it, I discovered this fascinating graph showing the gender split of research grant recipients:
It tells quite a story. Take a good look and you’ll discover male scientists receiving the bulk of the grants right through to 2020 when, miraculously, the males lost $1 million in funding to end up exactly on par with the female researchers.
I sent questions to the Foundation asking how this was possible, given gender was not mentioned as amongst criteria for determining the funding. Media director David Faktor responded with a bland statement that research grants were allocated purely on merit, claiming the shift was simply due to an increase in senior female researchers. Really?
It looks more likely to me that these people see no need to come up with any proper story to cover their shameless social engineering — and we let them get away with it.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.