In a stunning display of hubris and hubris-mongering, the Obama administration claimed last month that “we have the world’s most dangerous women.”
That assertion was a lie.
While we don’t have the United Nations’ global definition of “world’s most” dangerous women, we do have the UN’s Global Compact for Gender Equality, which states that women are not the “worlds most dangerous.”
(That’s a little confusing, because we don, in fact, have a list of women who are the worlds most deadly.
But there’s a lot of confusion around this one.)
As the UN puts it, the world “has never seen a more pressing need for gender equality, not just for women’s empowerment, but also for gender justice and equality in the workplace and the public sphere.”
It’s a bit like saying that we need a global sex-abuse hotline and that “women who molest children are the worst offenders.”
Or that “a single act of sexual violence against a woman is the equivalent of three or four rapes in a single year.”
Or, as Sarah Kliff of the Atlantic put it: “This is the wrong way to do it.”
The UN’s definition of women is also a bit unclear.
The Global Compact defines women as “all persons who are citizens, residents, or nationals of the countries in which they live or reside.”
But the Global Compact’s definition includes all countries.
As Kliff put it, “The global women’s conference is an example of what we should be doing with our global gender gap statistics.”
But we shouldn’t be doing it that way.
As Sarah Kliffs pointed out in the Atlantic, the global women conference, which took place in October, was “taken out of context by the Obama Administration to suggest that the number of women globally with criminal records was growing at an alarming rate.”
As Kliffs put it last month: “The Global Compact has a much wider scope than just crimes against women, it includes all the world over.”
In other words, the Global Commission on Women (GCPW) defines women “who are citizens of the country in which the person resides.”
If this definition is wrong, how come the United States is one of only three countries in the GCPW to have a woman among its members?
And the GCSW’s definition is not quite as vague as the UNs.
The GCSWs definition includes “all the countries where women are a majority or the majority of the population,” and the GSWP defines “women” as “persons who are either the national, provincial, municipal, or tribal head of the household, or the wife, mother, daughter, or sister of the head of such household.”
The GCPWs definition also includes women who “live in the same household as the head or husband of the national or provincial head of household.”
But, again, as Kliff puts it: The GSWPs definition includes people living in the “same household as their national or territorial head of households, as well as persons who live in the household of a woman, but do not live in such household as a woman.”
Kliff pointed out that the United Kingdom is the only GSWW member country that “does not have a women’s minister.”
The other two GSWWs member countries are the United Arab Emirates and Morocco.
The United States, by contrast, has a “women’s minister,” but not “a woman who leads a government agency.”
In short, the United Sates definition is more vague than the UN definitions, which are much more specific.
And it’s unclear how much of the GCAW is based on the UN definition.
In other word, it’s hard to say exactly how many women are held in detention in the United STATES.
But one thing is certain: the Obama White House has never seen anything like it.
And the American media is not reporting the facts about what the United State does and does not do.
They’re reporting the Obama administrations narrative.