I believe that two of the reasons you found this information so quickly are that 1) you're grounded in reality and seeking truth rather than just confirmation of a pre-existing ideology and 2) you have enough expertise in gynocentrism to have a pretty good idea of where the discrepancies would lie. That may seem a bit contradictory but it boils down to you actually knowing what you're talking about rather than than just fantasizing about some mythical existence in which women are always better than men or vice versa.
I was champing at the bit to add my two cents in the comments but you covered pretty much everything I would have said, so I'm left with nothing left to add but a bit of sucking up. Great job, Tom!
Recently I had a female friend visit me here in Europe. We were chatting about life and different things and right in the middle of 'something' came 'women have been oppressed for the last one hundred years'.
Now, I am not sure if she actually said 'hundreds of years' but I only heard 'the last hundred years'.. then I thought to myself and no I didn't question her about this..
The last hundreds years from 2025 back to 1925 or when is this period actually?
What happened before 1925, were women not oppressed?
How do you know this?
My friend is a professor!
The main thing that occurred to me was the way:::
many people just let stuff dribble out of their mouth without thinking about what they are saying or even if it is based in truth!
And divorced women aren't single either. If you want to see proof of that, look at Judge Judy episodes that feature fights between divorced women and their exes and/or exes's new partners. There's no such a thing as a permanent split.
You can win any argument if you're allowed to just redefine whatever words you want to. Single means not currently legally married and includes people who have never been married, are divorced, and widowers. You can pretend it doesn't, if you want to, but you're not fooling anyone.
Its not a matter of winning or not. It may be a lost in translation. In Spanish, single means never married. Once married, you can become divorced or wioder, but not single. May be in English has a different meaning.
"Single" in English means actually "not married or being in a romantic relationship" [Oxford dictionary]
The Spanish equivalent "soltero/a" means. "NEVER married".
So the same Word has sligthly different meaning in both languages.
I am divorced, so, from a Spanish point of view, I am not "single", but "divorced". The same for a widow: you are not "single", you are a widow. The marital status conditions the rest of your future marital status.
From an English point of view, instead, a divorced or widow person becomes "single" again.
I see female doctors here on Substack showing that they are primarily pr entirely concerned with female patients. Good reason to stay away from female doctors.
At one point, about two minutes in, you note that there is a 3% differential between men and women. I think the disparity is even clearer if one looks at the relative home ownership rates of men and women. The article notes that of the homes owned by a single adult, 11.14 million are owned by women and 8.42 million are owned by men. So if you divide the difference (2.72 million) by the number of men owning homes you get 32%.
Among single homeowners, women are 32% more likely than men to be a homeowner!
Thanks DC. There are a number of ways to look at the percentages. I was referring to the 12% vs 9% and noting that was a 3% difference. Not a very helpful number. But if you add 11.14 and 8.42 you get 19.56 which would be the total number of homes owned by single people. Then calculate what percent each of those is (11.14 and 8.42) of the total and I think it comes to about 57% for women and 43% for men which would be about a 14% difference.
That's still not a very useful number. The percentage of single homeowners compared to married homeowners is irrelevant, in this case, for one thing.
The important thing is the ratio bettween single men homeowners and single women homeowners. DC got one ratio correct: Single women are 32% more likely to own homes than single men. You could also get that by simply dividing the raw number of homes, directly. 11.14 mil÷8.42 mil=1.32 mil (rounded) and 8.42 mil÷11.14 mil=.74 mil (rounded). Compared a ratio of 1, which would be a 50/50 split, you could then say that single women are 32% more likely than single men to one a home and that single men are 26% less likely to own a home than single women.
Simply adding or subtracting percentages is almost always misleading. While it's true that there is a 14% difference in your second calculation, it's also true that (converting percentages to decimals) .57÷.43=1.32 and .43÷.57=.75. Whether you calculate the ratio of the raw numbers or the ratio of the percentages, you get the same results, with possible rounding errors. In your first calculation, in which found a roughly 3% difference instead of 14%, it's still true that .983÷1.301=.76 and 1.301÷.76=1.32.
No matter how you manipulate the raw numbers as a percentage of something else, the ratios always remain the same, allowing for rounding.
I have to agree with this assessment. A better measure would be to look at who paid the purchase price/cost of the house/mortgage when the home was bought:
A. Parent or Relative
B. Husband/Man
C. Wife/Woman
If you looked at actual percentages in each category (with some homes being bought with all 3 components), I suspect you would find Husbands and Men are paying more than their fair share despite having lower home ownership with women paying far less than the equity they ultimately control.
Another interesting measure would be to look at who is doing the work to maintain/repair these homes...the man, the woman, hired men...or hired women. I haven't met a lot of female roofers or carpenters or seen many women of the house taking on such roles.
Just seeing the title, my immediate thought was that they won't distinguish between never-married, divorced and widowed women, and lump them all together. Considering how often the woman gets the house in a divorce (virtually always), or late in life as widows, home ownership among women is not so much an achievement as a windfall. (will have more to say after watching, I'm sure)
Since all the factors you detail were ignored in the article in favour of the overriding intrinsic quality of the woman's willingness to SACRIFICE, would it not be appropriate - in the name of gender equity - to ask these saintly dowagers to give up their villas for the homeless, who happen to be men to a disproportionate degree? I await the Executive Order.
The entire idea that women have greater impulse control and long-term financial planning skills is laughable. Just today I overheard three women discussing a pair of shoes one had found online. As they swooned over the images, one of them said, “I’d hardly ever get to wear them though. £150 is quite a lot…” “But they’re GORGEOUS! I’d have them just to sit around the house or do the hoovering in!” Much cackling.
Shoes are ridiculously expensive nowadays. I buy them only for functionality and, anytime weather permits, I go barefoot and carry flip flops with In case I actually need something between my feet and the terrain.
When my husband needs new shoes, it always costs a fortune. I shop for mine at places like Ross (basically clothing liquidators). I have never spent more than $20 for shoes. Also, our 3D printer allows us to print new soles and heels when necessary.
Newspapers are after advertising dollars and if that means they have to trash men, trash western society - then so be it.
When will women wake up that they are being used and abused by Businesses more than the bad toxic men that might abuse them ever will, Businesses will do anything for money.
**please note I'm not against business or profit but some businesses will do anything to make a buck.
In my lifetime women got pushed into thinking being in the workforce was the pinnacle of adult existence. This doubled the candidate pool, dropping real wages in many jobs.
There were always opportunities for women who had ambitions outside the home. One of my childhood neighbors got her MD around the year 1900. Another neighbor ran her own dress shop.
Before so-called no-fault divorce, marriage was a woman's financial security. Now women are trained to believe their jobs = financial security, but it's windfalls like divorce and government aid that really keep women afloat these days.
The talk a DOGE taxpayer dividend has me thinking there should be a Men's dividend, in light of the complete dearth of programs to help men's homeownership, entrepreneurship and education.
I believe that two of the reasons you found this information so quickly are that 1) you're grounded in reality and seeking truth rather than just confirmation of a pre-existing ideology and 2) you have enough expertise in gynocentrism to have a pretty good idea of where the discrepancies would lie. That may seem a bit contradictory but it boils down to you actually knowing what you're talking about rather than than just fantasizing about some mythical existence in which women are always better than men or vice versa.
I was champing at the bit to add my two cents in the comments but you covered pretty much everything I would have said, so I'm left with nothing left to add but a bit of sucking up. Great job, Tom!
Thank you Sir! Interesting perspective on seeking the truth or seeking validation for one's beliefs.
Recently I had a female friend visit me here in Europe. We were chatting about life and different things and right in the middle of 'something' came 'women have been oppressed for the last one hundred years'.
Now, I am not sure if she actually said 'hundreds of years' but I only heard 'the last hundred years'.. then I thought to myself and no I didn't question her about this..
The last hundreds years from 2025 back to 1925 or when is this period actually?
What happened before 1925, were women not oppressed?
How do you know this?
My friend is a professor!
The main thing that occurred to me was the way:::
many people just let stuff dribble out of their mouth without thinking about what they are saying or even if it is based in truth!
I believed that the gap is driven because of men dying earlier. Its not single women, It viewoder women.
Yes, dying earlier is one of the factors the video discusses.
My point is we shall stop calling wiedow "single women". They are not single! They are wiedow!
And divorced women aren't single either. If you want to see proof of that, look at Judge Judy episodes that feature fights between divorced women and their exes and/or exes's new partners. There's no such a thing as a permanent split.
You can win any argument if you're allowed to just redefine whatever words you want to. Single means not currently legally married and includes people who have never been married, are divorced, and widowers. You can pretend it doesn't, if you want to, but you're not fooling anyone.
Its not a matter of winning or not. It may be a lost in translation. In Spanish, single means never married. Once married, you can become divorced or wioder, but not single. May be in English has a different meaning.
Wired.
"Single" in English means actually "not married or being in a romantic relationship" [Oxford dictionary]
The Spanish equivalent "soltero/a" means. "NEVER married".
So the same Word has sligthly different meaning in both languages.
I am divorced, so, from a Spanish point of view, I am not "single", but "divorced". The same for a widow: you are not "single", you are a widow. The marital status conditions the rest of your future marital status.
From an English point of view, instead, a divorced or widow person becomes "single" again.
We have found an interesting difference!!!
I suspect many readers have seen this with their own eyes.
I see female doctors here on Substack showing that they are primarily pr entirely concerned with female patients. Good reason to stay away from female doctors.
Great piece, Tom. Thank you.
At one point, about two minutes in, you note that there is a 3% differential between men and women. I think the disparity is even clearer if one looks at the relative home ownership rates of men and women. The article notes that of the homes owned by a single adult, 11.14 million are owned by women and 8.42 million are owned by men. So if you divide the difference (2.72 million) by the number of men owning homes you get 32%.
Among single homeowners, women are 32% more likely than men to be a homeowner!
Thanks DC. There are a number of ways to look at the percentages. I was referring to the 12% vs 9% and noting that was a 3% difference. Not a very helpful number. But if you add 11.14 and 8.42 you get 19.56 which would be the total number of homes owned by single people. Then calculate what percent each of those is (11.14 and 8.42) of the total and I think it comes to about 57% for women and 43% for men which would be about a 14% difference.
That's still not a very useful number. The percentage of single homeowners compared to married homeowners is irrelevant, in this case, for one thing.
The important thing is the ratio bettween single men homeowners and single women homeowners. DC got one ratio correct: Single women are 32% more likely to own homes than single men. You could also get that by simply dividing the raw number of homes, directly. 11.14 mil÷8.42 mil=1.32 mil (rounded) and 8.42 mil÷11.14 mil=.74 mil (rounded). Compared a ratio of 1, which would be a 50/50 split, you could then say that single women are 32% more likely than single men to one a home and that single men are 26% less likely to own a home than single women.
Simply adding or subtracting percentages is almost always misleading. While it's true that there is a 14% difference in your second calculation, it's also true that (converting percentages to decimals) .57÷.43=1.32 and .43÷.57=.75. Whether you calculate the ratio of the raw numbers or the ratio of the percentages, you get the same results, with possible rounding errors. In your first calculation, in which found a roughly 3% difference instead of 14%, it's still true that .983÷1.301=.76 and 1.301÷.76=1.32.
No matter how you manipulate the raw numbers as a percentage of something else, the ratios always remain the same, allowing for rounding.
I have to agree with this assessment. A better measure would be to look at who paid the purchase price/cost of the house/mortgage when the home was bought:
A. Parent or Relative
B. Husband/Man
C. Wife/Woman
If you looked at actual percentages in each category (with some homes being bought with all 3 components), I suspect you would find Husbands and Men are paying more than their fair share despite having lower home ownership with women paying far less than the equity they ultimately control.
Another interesting measure would be to look at who is doing the work to maintain/repair these homes...the man, the woman, hired men...or hired women. I haven't met a lot of female roofers or carpenters or seen many women of the house taking on such roles.
Thanks Sadredin. Excellent point.
I'd find it even more useful than it is, Tom, if I had a transcript.
Hi Paul - A transcript of the video? I think you can get a transcript with the link at the top of the page. right?
There is a Transcript button to the left of the CC (closed captions) button. It looks like a page with text on it.. I'd never noticed it before!!
Right you are, Jamie. Thanks.
Tom, just in case you didn't know about this Club for women: https://lyceumclubs.org/en/
https://lyceumclubs.org/en/our-network/
Amazing, isn't it? And men's clubs are forbidden.
Just seeing the title, my immediate thought was that they won't distinguish between never-married, divorced and widowed women, and lump them all together. Considering how often the woman gets the house in a divorce (virtually always), or late in life as widows, home ownership among women is not so much an achievement as a windfall. (will have more to say after watching, I'm sure)
Since all the factors you detail were ignored in the article in favour of the overriding intrinsic quality of the woman's willingness to SACRIFICE, would it not be appropriate - in the name of gender equity - to ask these saintly dowagers to give up their villas for the homeless, who happen to be men to a disproportionate degree? I await the Executive Order.
The things that women usually sacrifice are their male benefactors.
The entire idea that women have greater impulse control and long-term financial planning skills is laughable. Just today I overheard three women discussing a pair of shoes one had found online. As they swooned over the images, one of them said, “I’d hardly ever get to wear them though. £150 is quite a lot…” “But they’re GORGEOUS! I’d have them just to sit around the house or do the hoovering in!” Much cackling.
As my mother used to say "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing".
Shoes are ridiculously expensive nowadays. I buy them only for functionality and, anytime weather permits, I go barefoot and carry flip flops with In case I actually need something between my feet and the terrain.
When my husband needs new shoes, it always costs a fortune. I shop for mine at places like Ross (basically clothing liquidators). I have never spent more than $20 for shoes. Also, our 3D printer allows us to print new soles and heels when necessary.
That's a great idea. I tried painting liquid rubber onto some of mine but it's doesn't work very well.
Well, the article did mention both divorce and widowhood but it was a passing reference. Amd yes, I await that exec order too!
In divorce, their shared house often becomes just her house.
Newspapers are after advertising dollars and if that means they have to trash men, trash western society - then so be it.
When will women wake up that they are being used and abused by Businesses more than the bad toxic men that might abuse them ever will, Businesses will do anything for money.
**please note I'm not against business or profit but some businesses will do anything to make a buck.
In my lifetime women got pushed into thinking being in the workforce was the pinnacle of adult existence. This doubled the candidate pool, dropping real wages in many jobs.
There were always opportunities for women who had ambitions outside the home. One of my childhood neighbors got her MD around the year 1900. Another neighbor ran her own dress shop.
Before so-called no-fault divorce, marriage was a woman's financial security. Now women are trained to believe their jobs = financial security, but it's windfalls like divorce and government aid that really keep women afloat these days.
Well said Trish.
Back in the seventies we did try to tell women the grass wasn't greener.
Divorced men usually give the family home to the ex.
This is a most unfortunate situation for this family but the positive is that it is in main stream media in Australia:
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/everything-is-just-getting-harder-brother-of-ben-ellis-frankston-father-who-took-his-own-life-demands-action-from-government-to-address-mental-health-crisis-among-men/news-story/f75a332ab9deac7172d677eda8b99cca
'Brother of Ben Ellis, Frankston father who took his own life, demands action from government to address mental health crisis among men'
I found some of the comments good.
The talk a DOGE taxpayer dividend has me thinking there should be a Men's dividend, in light of the complete dearth of programs to help men's homeownership, entrepreneurship and education.
Good work, Tom.