The Z-Effect

1 view
Skip to first unread message


Oct 27, 2013, 6:47:30 PM10/27/13

I have written elsewhere about the facts that:

1.Feminism is not about equality and

2. counting the proportion of females in decision-making positions is not a reliable indicator of the male-female power balance.

See the following:

1. Chapter 14 of Sex, Lies & Feminism

2. Feminism is about Equality. Yeah right.

3. Chapter 10 of Sex, Lies & Feminism and

4. The Frontman Fallacy, Feminism, and Men's Rights.

Feminists know nothing, and care less, about men's rights, interests or needs, so they have absolutely no idea what "equality" between men and women would even look like -- let alone aiming at achieving that equality.

The Z-Effect

In Male Politicians and Female Policies, I pointed out that increasing the proportion of female MPs in a parliamentary party does not result in a more equal distribution of policies between those that help men and those that help women. See the following table which is based on searches of New Zealand political party websites for the words "men" and "women" on October 22 2013:

See the table at:

As I stated on the page Male Politicians and Female Policies, the fact that the word "men" occurs does not necessarily imply that the relevant document is about men. It is likely that many of the documents are really about women, and just include men for the purposes of comparison. All these parties have more or less Feminist agendas, by which I mean that they are more or less conscious of a perceived need to increase the number of female Members of Parliament (MPs), but they have no apparent inclination to promote policies that benefit men, unless they also benefit women. You might think that, when/if parties equalise the number of male and female MPs or of male and female spokespeople, then they will finally turn their attention to balancing their pro-female policies with an equal number of pro-male policies.

However, what I call the Z-Effect proves the opposite.

See the graph at:

Although my knowledge of mathematics is only elementary, it seems to me that the Z-Effect describes the above graph reasonably adequately.

Z-Effect: m = 100 - (((p-6)/2)x3), where

m stands for the proportion of mentions of the word "men" (as a proportion of mentions of the word "women") on a New Zealnd Parliamentary party's website, and

p stands for the number of females as a proportion of the total membership of that New Zealand Parliamentary party.

The Z-Effect predicts that the proportion of female MPs would have to be only 6% if we wanted to ensure that the word "men" appeared just as often as the word "women" on a party's website. It predicts that a party's having an equal number of male and female MPs would result in the word "men" being mentioned only 35% as often as the word "women" on the party's website. It also predicts that, if the number of female MPs reached 72% of one Parliamentary party, the word "men" would cease to be mentioned on the party's website altogether!


1. I have included the Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, because she appeared on the relevant website, even though she was technically no longer an MP at that time.
2. I have included all parties having more than three MPs.
3. It remains to be seen whether the Z-Effect (even in a modified form) applies to other countries.
4. It may seem that four parties is a very small sample, but, actually, four parties comprise the entire statistical population under study -- not just a sample of it. I am not (yet?) projecting this result to cover other countries.
5. A feedback process may well take place, once people know about the Z-Effect, and political parties will probably doctor their websites, in order to make them look more gender-neutral.


Feminism has nothing to do with equality! It is a power-grab by women for women!!

Peter Zohrab
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages