Jane Crow To 1940 Movies
This is the third installment of some of the examples I have encountered of women's and feminism's self-indulgence and delusion. Of course, selfishness and delusion can lead to the belief that one deserves to be treated differently than others, which leads to another common characteristic of women, hypocrisy. All of this easily leads to blatant misandry against men. Here are more examples of women's, and especially feminism's, self-indulgence, delusion, hypocrisy, misandry, and the media's facilitation of them all.
Victimization
A great deal of women's self-indulgence is based on their victimization. Women gain much power by being victims. Feminism insists that women are always victims, in every endeavor, and that men are always the victimizers and are never victims themselves.
The fear of black men raping white women has long been an impetus for the subjugation of blacks in America. For example, feminist Rebecca Felton said in 1897, "If it requires lynching to protect woman's dearest possession from ravening, drunken human beasts, then I say lynch a thousand negroes a week...." [1] This fear was instrumental in leading to riots, the take-over of governments by whites after Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. There seems to be a similar rape crisis in America today, in which feminists are greatly exaggerating the danger of rape and sexual assault to all women by all men. This rape fear-mongering and other exaggerations and outright lies, just like Jim Crow, are also leading to unjust legislation and practices today. For example, people scoffed when Antioch College initiated oppressive dating rules for men a few years ago, but those "affirmative consent" rules are now the law in California universities. The Department of Education has demanded that colleges end much due process for male students accused of sexual misconduct, or the colleges risk losing federal funding. Denial of the large number of false rape accusations leads to punishment of innocent men. Many women are demanding that all fraternities close. Sexual harassment rules have made traditional male sexual behavior in the workplace very risky. The Nordic Model makes prostitution illegal, but only for the buyer, i.e., men. The Tender Years Doctrine almost always gives custody of children to mothers. The Duluth Model and policies that demand that police arrest the bigger, stronger person in a domestic dispute, almost always make men guilty of domestic violence. These all point to feminists using an exaggerated fear of rape and other exaggerations to initiate a system of "Jane Crow" against American men. Of course, it is not likely to be anywhere as serious and oppressive as Jim Crow, but it certainly deserves our attention and condemnation. [2]
An example of this rape fear-mongering was "A Rape On Campus," Jackie Coakley's tale of rape at a University of Virginia fraternity party presented in the December, 2014 Rolling Stone Magazine. Even though her story was clearly false in many details, the media as well as the police could not seem to say out loud that she was a lying fraud. The media even used the occasion to spout the usual feminist pronouncements about evil men and rape. She apparently completely fabricated out of thin air her date for the evening, making up a name, using a picture of a boy from her high school, and even sending herself emails supposedly from him to confirm his existence to her roommates. She said that her date was a lifeguard she had worked with. But the named frat did not have such a person as a member nor a rush party the night in question. Her story changed from being forced to perform oral sex on five fraternity brothers to being raped by seven men. She said she fell through a glass table and was raped on broken glass as well as being punched. Yet she had no injuries. The police also found another incident to be false, in which she was allegedly attacked by several men and had a bottle smashed against her face. Yet the police still insisted that she may have been raped. And the media all followed suit, insisting that something may have happened to her, and that we should still unquestionably believe women who cry rape. Only the publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner, had the temerity to blame Coakley for her lies by calling her a "fabulist storyteller," [3] for which he was roundly criticized by all. And still the media allowed Coakley anonymity, refusing to print her full name, and letting her get away with her lies. This is another example of special treatment for women and not holding them responsible. Quite a double standard.
The Columbia School of Journalism reported [4] that the author of the Rolling Stone story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the editors, and the fact-checkers at Rolling Stone had violated the most basic of journalistic standards, yet the report and the media failed to point out the real reason for the fictitious article---the current bias favoring women in the media. Erdely went looking for the most dramatic and gut-wrenching victimization of women possible. And this story of rape by seven men fit the bill. The fact that the crime occurred in a fraternity, a favorite target for feminist hate, was icing on the cake. It all fit Erdely's political and ideological preconceived biases against men. When Coakley asked the author not to contact the fraternity and others connected with the case, Erdely and the editors at Rolling Stone said that they bowed to this outrageous request in order to save Coakley any further trauma. But I suspect feminism's push that we always believe rape accusers may have also contributed to this major violation of journalism. All the media complained that the Rolling Stone article might lead to a chilling effect on women reporting sexual assaults, while missing that the article might just have been one more example of a sexual assault hysteria. (It is ironic that we are forbidden to use the word "hysteria" concerning women, which only encourages them to be hysterical.) The Columbia report was a golden opportunity to expose the media's complete duplicity in its treatment of men and women, often referred to as the "lace curtain." But even the Columbia School of Journalism missed the point. And Rolling Stone is refusing to fire anyone over the incident---apparently ideological bias trumps good journalism.
"Trading the Megaphone For the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement" by Janet Halley [5] provides another example of women's self-indulgence, misandry, and delusion. Advocates, as the term implies, are one-sided. Advocates for raped women are now controlling much of the government response to rape and sexual assault in colleges. As one would expect, they are being very one-sided, instituting procedures and rules that ignore due process for accused men. These advocates-turned-government-bureaucrats are assuming all instances are comparable to the worst instances, real or imagined. There are no shades of gray, no complicating circumstances---he is guilty, period. As well as dealing with wrongdoing, these advocates are also venturing into prevention, which further removes due process for college men. For example, some colleges are now requiring that men obey ridiculously oppressive "affirmative consent" rules when dating. Under these rules, men must receive an unambiguous "yes" for every step in the sexual dance; otherwise, they risk becoming rapists. These rules are so impractical, that almost all sexual interactions could be considered criminal. [6]
The Glass Cliff phenomenon, where women are put in charge of failing companies, has received media attention lately. Of course, the thrust of the attention is that women are being unfairly criticized for failing when put in charge of companies that are near failure anyway. Most of the evidence for the Glass Cliff for women comes from British researchers Michelle Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam. Their evidence is weak at best. For example, one study [7] found that 19 women had been appointed to Boards of Directors (not CEOs) of 18 companies and compared the performance of these companies to 19 selected comparison companies that had appointed men to the Boards of Directors. The study found that the women's appointments were to companies experiencing poorer performance. But, of course, this result was very dependent on which 19 comparison companies were selected for the study. A different 19 companies could have given completely different results. Besides, how much influence does a member of the Board of Directors have on a company? Other studies by Ryan and Haslam were surveys, not hard data studies. [8] However a more rigorous study [9] which focused on the CEOs of 1500 U.S. companies found that there was no Glass Cliff for women, and that if anything, there was a bit of a Glass Cliff for men. Yet the studies of Ryan and Haslam receive all of the attention.
This supposed Glass Cliff phenomenon is even harder to understand when a largely unknown fact is revealed. A study of the S & P 500 companies found that the median compensation for female CEOs is 13% higher than for male CEOs. [10] How can women complain of a Glass Cliff when they make so much more than men? But wait, there's more. The same study that found the 13% higher pay for female CEOs also postulated that female CEOs were being discriminated against and should be making even more money. Unbelievable! Women's self-indulgence is unbounded.
I have mentioned in earlier articles that the media, for the most part, are very biased in women's favor. Men are not getting a fair hearing from the media. A recent example of this occurred during the trial of Ellen Pao. She is currently CEO of Reddit, but sued her former employer, Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, for gender discrimination. She claimed that she was passed over for promotion because she was female and then fired when she complained. Kleiner claimed that she was fired for incompetence. The jury sided with Kleiner, but one would not know this from the media coverage. Throughout the trial as well as after the verdict, the media focused on the sexual discrimination claims by Pao, as well as other women's claims against Silicon Valley tech firms. It was as if the verdict of the jury did not matter, we must focus on the victimization of women, women, women, no matter what.
Time Magazine recently reported [11] on the victimization of women in Brazil, which has passed legislation which "imposes harsher penalties for those who harm or kill women and girls." This was described as "part of the government’s zero-tolerance policy towards violence against women in a country where 15 women are killed every day" and "a triumph for Brazilian women." But, of course, this law is shockingly sexist, blatantly valuing women more than men. If the government has a "zero-tolerance policy" towards violence against women, just what is the government's tolerance policy towards violence against men? What makes this even more inscrutable is the fact that 90% of homicide victims in Brazil are male. [12] How can legislators, women's advocates, and the media put out this crap without fear of criticism or eternal damnation?
A recent American Lung Association TV ad shows just how far women and the media will go to focus on the victimization of women, women, women, and only women. [13] The ad features Jewel and Kellie Pickler promoting a Lung Force Walk to bring attention to lung cancer in women. What is the possible justification for ignoring men in this ad? After all, 21% more men die of lung cancer (87,000 vs. 72,000) every year, and more men develop lung cancer (116,000 vs. 108,000) every year. [14] It appears society and the media just do not care about men. We must focus only on the victimization of women. I will not be contributing to the American Lung Association anytime soon.
Often, women's complaining leads to benefits for women---the squeaky wheel getting grease. For example, we often hear how women are discriminated against in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. But a recent study from Cornell University shows that women are favored for assistant professorships 2 to 1 over men in these fields. [15] One would think that this information would lead to the cessation of complaints about the bias against women, and instead lead to remedies to the apparent bias against men. Nope. Don't think so.
Here is an item of victimization from the Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't Department. We all know how the media portray men as unfeeling sexist pigs. Well, now, Dr. Judith Hall of Northeastern University has published a study [16] that shows that men who are friendly and smile at women are also pigs. She calls it "benevolent sexism." She concludes that these men see women as incompetent, helpless, and in need of protection. Oh, those scumbags! Dr. Hall came to this conclusion by studying a whopping 27 couples interacting during games of trivial pursuit. So, guys and gals, if you think you are a good guy, or you think your boyfriend is a good guy, you are wrong. This is just one more example of how far delusional feminist science will go to demonize men.
Along the same lines is the feminist appropriation of the term "microaggression." It was originally used to describe whites' small, every-day denigrating language concerning African-Americans. But feminists have now adopted the word to describe the small, and supposedly constant, denigrations of women by men. It appears feminists are running out of the really big things to complain about. Now they must resort to subtle, vague, and likely imaginary slights to show women's many victimizations.
A glaring example of women's and the media's hypocrisy was on view for all with the different reactions to the disciplining of their children by Toya Graham and Adrian Peterson. NFL player Peterson was roundly criticized and suspended for hitting his son with a switch. Graham was praised and became a national hero after a video showed her slapping around her son when she caught him participating in the Baltimore riots. Many referred to her as "Mom of the Year." I suppose many would claim that these were totally different circumstances that required different responses. However, I believe the difference in responses is due to pure sexist duplicity. Try this thought experiment. Reverse the genders in the Graham video to a father slapping around his 16-year-old daughter. I do not think anyone would declare him "Father of the Year." They would probably demand his arrest. Total delusion and hypocrisy.
Or, consider this. NFL running back Ray Rice and the NFL received a tremendous amount of negative attention when Rice got in a fight with his fiance. The women's lobby and the media were out for his blood, demanding that Rice be fired as well as demanding a pound of flesh from the NFL. Brittney Griner of the WNBA recently got in a fight with her fiance. The incident received very little media attention and was ignored by the women's lobby. There were no demands for Griner's job or for the WNBA to institute any domestic violence programs or policies. (Griner pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and was ordered to get counseling.)
Domestic violence in the WNBA seems to be prevalent, yet it is difficult to find any media coverage of the crimes. Chamique Holdsclaw took a bat to her ex-girlfriend’s car and fired a handgun into it while her ex was in it. Deanna “Tweety” Nolan was arrested for beating and pulling a gun on her wife. Nolan allegedly also assaulted her first wife. Jantel Lavender has kneed her boyfriend in the groin, slammed his head against a wall, pulled a knife and threatened to kill him, and choked him on two different occasions. The violence of these women is far worse than the violence of Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson. Yet there was no outcry from the media or feminist groups. If anything, the media coverage has been sarcastic. "...Accused Of BUSTING Her Ex's BALLS....LITERALLY!...Wonder what he did to get her so pissy....was accused of a "flagrant foul" off-court...." [17] A woman beating on a man is a time for levity and bad puns.
Equal Pay is another area of victimization where feminist mendacity is the norm. There is plenty of evidence that the pay gap between men and women has little to do with discrimination. [18] But feminist distortions continue. Recently, Sarah Silverman offered a personal example of the pay gap for the #AskForMore Campaign. [19] She told an anecdote about receiving $10 for a comedy set while a male friend received $60 for an equal set. The owner of the comedy club responded that the difference had nothing to do with discrimination, but that the male friend was paid for a booked set, while Silverman's set was on a drop-in basis, which is usually unpaid. The owner said he felt guilty and gave her $10 for cab fare, not something he normally did for drop-in comedians. Silverman, unlike most women, actually apologized for her mistake. But women and the media continue to complain that the pay gap is all due to discrimination. They do not let the facts get in the way of a good victimization-of-women story.
A local university's student government has been changing. Several years ago it was roughly gender-balanced, but a few years back it cycled through a year with mostly men. Of course, this resulted in complaints of women not being represented and cries of sexism. The American Association of University Women brought their Elect Her Campaign to campus, which encouraged and helped women to run for student government. The 2014 elections ended with 6 women and 1 man being elected. Were there cries of discrimination and complaints of men not being represented? Of course not. Did the Elect Her Campaign return in 2015? Of course it did. What was the justification for encouraging women to run when women already dominated student government? Well, because women running for office is still not reflective of society. Women will always find some excuse to be victims.
A complaint we often hear from women is that female actors do not get any parts as they get older. What is always missing from this complaint is that young, beautiful actresses often obtain acting jobs, not because they are skilled actors, but because they are young and beautiful. (Something similar appears to occur with singers as well.) So it is a double-edge sword---youth and beauty give fame and fortune to these women, but when the youth and beauty disappear, so do their careers. One would think that these women would be grateful in that they were able to unfairly ride their genetic good fortune to stardom, and not be so self-indulgent to think that they can continue the ride when their genes fail them. What about all of the other better actresses who did not get acting jobs because they were not so genetically blessed? How can some women's selfishness make them so clueless?
To prove the point, I looked at the Academy Award's Best Actor and Best Actress nominees from 2001 through 2010. (Please keep in mind that serious movies, which lean toward female audiences, are more likely to receive nominations. Action films and Comedies, which are more likely to have male actors and male audiences, rarely receive nominations.) I looked at the nominees' age when nominated as well as their experience (number of movies they had been in, up to and including the movie they were nominated for.) [20] One would think, as in most occupations, that actors and actresses would get better at their craft as they age and gain experience. However this seems to be more true for men than women. I found that the men were 17% older, on average, than the female nominees. I also found that the men acted in an average of 37% more movies before nomination. (The stats based on the median instead of the average were 29% older and 32% more experienced.) Three women were nominated for Oscars for their FIRST movie roles. By contrast, the three least-experienced men received nominations for their 8th, 9th, and 10th movie roles. It appears women are being nominated for their youth and beauty more than for their acting abilities. Hypocritical women who complain about losing acting roles as they age should first complain about unfairly receiving roles (and nominations) because they are young and beautiful.
Feminists have long complained of the unrealistic body image that Barbie dolls have placed on girls. I find the complaint more than a little silly since no dolls are all that realistic. Raggedy Ann, Cabbage Patch, Teddy Bears, Lalaloopsy Babies, Flutterbye Fairies, as well as Disney's Elsa, Ariel, and Cinderella dolls all are distortions of reality. And just what do girls think men look like after seeing a Ken doll? On top of this, male dolls and characters are often far more unrealistic. For example, consider Sesame Street's Elmo, Oscar, Bert, Ernie, Grover, and Cookie Monster compared to Abby. Or Frozen's Olaf compared to Elsa. What about Big Hero's Baymax and Fred? Or the horror film character and doll, Chucky? Feminists really have little to complain about, but just have to complain about something. And look at who has replaced Barbie as body images girls strive for today----Kim Kardashian, Nicki Minaj, and Iggy Azalea. These women’s bodies are far more exaggerated than Barbie’s. Any complaints about the body image encouraged by Barbie are doubly ridiculous. Way to go, feminists!
Indulgence
Some groups are demanding a picture of a woman on the $20 bill. It certainly seems like a laudable goal, but which woman? Here are the 15 women that the group Women On 20s has promoted as candidates: Alice Paul, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Sojournor Truth, Rachel Carson, Rosa Parks, Barbara Jordan, Margaret Sanger, Patsy Mink, Clara Barton, Harriet Tubman, Frances Perkins, Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. If the exact same accomplishments of these women were performed by men, I doubt whether any of them would be considered for portraits on money. Ten of the 15 candidates were women's rights activists. It is just like selfish women to celebrate women whose main purpose was to benefit women. [21]
The President of the White House Correspondents' Association selects the performer for the annual WHCA Dinner. In the last 25 years, there have been 7 female Presidents of the WHCA. In that same time there have been 4 female comedians selected as the featured performers, in which 3 were selected by female Presidents. Of course, this means that the 18 male Presidents only selected one female comedian. Considering that there are far more male than female comedians, the female Presidents were being quite self-indulgent and sexist.
Women's self-absorption concerning their appearance is constant. Their appearance is, after all, the base of their power. (I am always amazed at how women use and enhance their sexual power while at the same time demanding that men give up all of their economic or political power.) I read recently that 75% of women color their hair. [22] That's some severe self-indulgence. To prove the point, I looked at the 20 female U.S. Senators. As far as I can tell, there is not one gray hair among them. The Senators vary in age from 45 to 82 with an average age of 62. Not one gray hair. Sure, some men color their hair or wear wigs, but there are plenty of bald and graying male Senators.
Media
"Morning Joe" on MSNBC is a morning political discussion program. Hosts are former Congressman Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. The dynamic between the two often seems strained. I see Brzezinski acting like a disgusted mother always trying to control her misbehaving son. But Scarborough is not misbehaving----the show moves along nicely when she is not there. The show has many guests, who are mostly men, but there are plenty of women. Often, Brzezinski takes over part of the show for a women-only segment where she promotes her feminist male-bashing and female self-indulgence. On top of this, she also is promoting Know Your Value, an online campaign to increase women's self-confidence, which is also offering a $10,000 prize to a woman for the best video on why she deserves a bonus. This is just a wee bit sexist. Imagine the uproar if a competition like this were limited to men only.
One of the articles posted on the Know Your Value website listed 10 inventions by women. [23] The article is a celebration of women inventors. Of course, we need all of the life-saving and progress-inducing inventions we can get, so praise to all furthering this cause. But a couple of facts, oddly, were left out of the article: men are responsible for about 92.5% of patents in the United States and 82% since 1990 [24] (This is a nice improvement for women, but also shows that women will probably never reach parity.) I do not mean to downgrade the efforts of women scientists or inventors, but this constant inability of women to admit that men are superior at anything does get old. It is sad that a website must hide the truth in order to increase women's confidence. And women keep telling us that men have the fragile egos.
It seems the media are constantly looking for and highlighting examples of females outdoing males. Little League pitcher, Mo'ne Davis, was a recent example. She outperformed most of the boys on her team as well as boys on opponents' teams. And the media went crazy singing her praises. She was the first Little League player to ever appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated. But were her baseball skills really much of an achievement? After all, girls shoot up sooner than boys, who do not gain upper body strength or body size until after puberty. Boys and girls are fairly even in height and weight up until age 10. But from 11 through 13, girls are bigger and taller. Boys do not pass them until age 14. [25] Oddly, the age range for Little League is 11 to 13. It appears girls have an advantage over boys in Little League. Actually, it is surprising that there are so few superior girls.
Another example of the media's focus on women appeared in a Stella Artois TV ad [26] where the purchase of a chalice would prompt Stella Artois to donate a 5-year supply of fresh drinking water to a WOMAN in the developing world. Men do not drink water? Men do not need water? The ad is so selfish, sexist, and ridiculous.
In a recent Nationwide Insurance TV ad, [27] a man believes that he is invisible. He approaches a woman and is about to grope her, when she asks him what he is doing. He realizes that she can see him and gets defensive, saying, "You don't have to look at me like that. There are worse things than an attractive man touching your body." This ad was roundly condemned by all as incredibly sexist and offensive. Oh wait! I am mistaken. Actually the genders were reversed in the ad. Mindy Kaling thought she was invisible, and absolutely no one had a problem with the ad which has run for months. This is a very blatant example of the duplicity of the media and women. I am sure that if the actual ad had been gender-reversed, the outcry would have been deafening. But a defensive woman about to grope a man in a TV ad is not worthy of any notice.
Although I believe that it has become much stronger in the last 40 years, the constant portrayal of men as numbskulls and women as angels is not new. For example, I recently noticed two 1940 comedic movies that show the pattern. Too Many Husbands is about a woman who finds herself married to two men, and My Favorite Wife, conversely, is about a man who discovers he has two wives. Because of the opposite scenarios, one would think that the two movies would present turn-about-fair-play laughs at both men and women. But no. Too Many Husbands presents two men making fools of themselves while fighting over a seemingly innocent, but very self-indulgent woman. In My Favorite Wife, the plot is essentially about two wives---one of whom is very manipulative---and a surrogate husband making Cary Grant look like a fool. The media just are not allowed to make fun of women. This apparently was also true even in 1940. Actually, it was also true around 1600, when many of Shakespeare's plays showed women making fools of men.
Examples of women's self-indulgence, hypocrisy, misandry, victimization and delusion are everywhere. I'm sure you can easily find examples as well. But when will women stop?
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_riot.html
[2] See also "Jim Crow Laws and Feminism" By Dre Morell at http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/jim-crow-laws-and-feminism/.
It is interesting that we both came to similar conclusions independently.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/rolling-stone-retracts-article-on-rape-at-university-of-virginia.html?_r=0
[4] http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405
[5] http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/
[6] See also "Affirmative Consent": The Sex Police on the Defensive" by Cathy Young at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/30/affirmative_consent_the_sex_police_on_the_defensive_123157.html#ixzz36drIywoY
[7] "The Glass Cliff: Evidence That Women are Over-represented in Precarious Leadership Positions" by Michelle Ryan and S Alexander Haslam (2005)
[8] "Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women's leadership positions," Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Haslam, Tom Postmes, (2007) Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 2 pp. 182 - 197
"Legal Work and the Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Preferentially Selected to Lead Problematic Cases," Julie S. Ashby, Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Haslam (2007)
[9] "Are Female Executives Over-represented in Precarious Leadership Positions?" Susan M. Adams, Atul Gupta and John D. Leeth (2009)
[10] http://www.nerdwallet.com/investing/corporate-taxes/top-executive-pay/info
[11] http://time.com/3738529/brazil-violence-women-law-femicide/
[12] Global Study on Homicide by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2014, page 136
at http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
[13] http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7yDx/american-lung-association-lung-force-ft-jewel-and-kellie-pickler
[14] The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2015, page 160, World Almanac Books
[15] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions
[16] "Nonverbal and Verbal Expressions of Men’s Sexism in Mixed-Gender Interactions," Jin X. Goh, Judith A. Hall. Sex Roles, 2015
[17] http://theybf.com/2011/08/24/damn-wnba-chick-jantel-lavender-accused-of-busting-her-exs-ballsliterally
[18] "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women." at http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%
"The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000," Prof. June O’Neill, Ph.D. American Economic Review, 5/03
Why Men Earn More by Warren Farrell
[19] http://www.salon.com/2015/04/10/comedy_club_owner_rebuts_sarah_silvermans_wage_gap_accusations/
[20] To compute these statistics, I used data from VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever, 2012, Jim Craddick, Editor
[21] For my full article, go to http://www.avoiceformen.com/art-entertainment-culture/women-on-money/
[22] http://www.emerita.com/news-march2012/
[23] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ten-female-inventors-who-saved-our-lives
[24] http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/gender-and-patents-are-women-slackers
[25] http://www.md-health.com/Weight-Chart-For-Kids
[26] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O1-SmZ3rxw
[27] http://www.nationwide.com/cps/pc-invisible.html
