Remember the Big Issue website that claimed 40% of Australia's homeless are wiminz? The definitions discussed in the linked article may explain how they arrived at such a dubious figure.

2012-09-13T10:59:24+00:00

Everyone knows men are the most affected by homelessness in Australia, doesn't take an idiot to figure that out. Crisis shelters for men are usually full when they leave their homes for whatever reason and people just call them bums for not having a job and house. If a women ends up homeless I bet there's more support for her. Men are "bums" and "lazy" and "alcoholics" for being homeless, that sort of attitude makes me sad.

Gingor · 2012-09-13T09:03:42+00:00

And again somebody is redefining terms that are clearly and logically defined.

But, hey, logic=patriarchy

enkidusfriend · 2012-09-13T15:26:59+00:00

It seems that both definitions could be improved by distinguishing between "homeless" persons and persons with insecure housing.

Instead of using "wiminz", why don't you cut out the bullshit editorializing and just let the point stand on its own?

SirSkeptic · 2012-09-13T08:54:28+00:00

Thanks for this. It's a Humphrey Appleby redefinition of terms, like defining censorship as freedom of speech. Or silence as violence.

DavidByron · 2012-09-13T15:52:52+00:00

So they took a look at the figures and said "these statistics don't show women suffering enough" and then redefined homelessness to include people who sleep in their own bed every night under the same roof - presumably because that category of "homeless" included a lot of women, which in turn is presumably because those women already got a helping hand that the men didn't get.

Up to a point that is fair enough but then they take those figures again, throw out the "women are 40%" and then treat that as if they said "women are 99%" and use it as a reason to deny services to men, the demographic already being discriminated against and worse off.

At the end of the day it's only about manipulating the data to ensure female supremacy, which in this case is more about presenting all women as victims, rather than helping homeless people of either sex I imagine.

Funcuz · 2012-09-13T16:14:59+00:00

The problem here is that people are going to take away from these definitions that women suffer homelessness at rate in the same ballpark as do men . It wouldn't be a problem to state that if it were true but it already IS a gendered issue because the overwhelming majority of people living on the street are male . So where is the money going to go ? Well , it's not going to go towards the people that need it the most who , in this case , happen to be mostly male . In separating the homeless along gender lines , the government makes it a gender issue . And they do it wrong .

Of course , if the government actually cared about men in the first place , they wouldn't have to find new and exciting ways to expand the definition to include people the government does actually care about .

Hach8 · 2012-09-13T16:57:49+00:00

That's awesome. By the existing definition I am homeless!

I'm also homeless under the "new" definition too. This is just silliness.

Also I'm kind of grumpy knowing that the section 8 housing I live across the street from costs those "poor" people less, yet they have wayyyy more space than me. Sorry, /ot.

typhonblue · 2012-09-14T00:10:18+00:00

Primary homeless are most likely between 75-90% male.

FiveMagicBeans · 2012-09-13T15:11:04+00:00

Can we stop using idiotic misogynist speech to try and get our point across when we have an otherwise valid argument to present?

Regardless of how compelling the information is, every time you title a post with idiotic crap like "wiminz" you seriously devalue anything else that you have to say.

Comments