Back this week are an exaggerator and a retail proprietress with a heart of gold.
Donovan Steyl malaprops again
Yes, the man behind the myth of the pink rand is back. (Here “myth” means “factually unsupported assertion” or “lie.”) Writing for some kind of Sithifrican marketing Web site – I think it’s MarketingWeb; that name appears four times in the URL – Steyl trots out the lines he hopes advertisers will believe. They shouldn’t. (Various grammatical errors sic.)
The ABNSA Gay Consumer profile that was commissioned in 2008 is the largest of its kind in South Africa, its findings showed that roughly 10% of the South African population is gay. This amounts to just over 4.8 million people.
Wrong.
Of the 15,000 respondents that completed the survey,
Actually, 15,000 was the number circulated.
The term ‘DINK’ (Dual Income No Kids )was coined for this demographic. This means that the gay community tend to have more disposable income. They are also early adaptors, eager to try new brands and set trends. The ‘Pink Rand’ is a considerable segment of the South African market and is known for its superior spending value.
The survey Steyl quotes didn’t poll respondents for the presence of children (nor did it poll hetero couples for comparison). The term is early adopter; we aren’t turning DC power into AC. There is no “pink rand,” let alone a capitalized one. There are a few wealthy white gays whom Steyl tells would-be clients are a customer bloc.
I complained to the editors of MarketingWeb, who refused to respond.
Boing Boing Brooklyn: Still peddling a myth of lesbian poverty
Listen, I’m not saying lesbian moms in Brooklyn aren’t low-income. But the proprietress of Boing Boing Maternity, the increasingly notorious Karen Paperno, isn’t saying that either. She’s saying that gay males have lots of money and lesbians don’t. And she’s still saying that.
“Women still only make 77 cents on the dollar, and two women together have less disposable income than married folks and gay-male couples,” she said.
Well, the disparity between women’s and men’s earnings is largely accounted for by occupational choice and childbearing and childrearing. There’s very limited evidence that women are paid 77% what men are for the same jobs. (One study of new MBAs found something similar.)
But the actual facts aren’t what Paperno is trying to get across here. She’s just trying to say women are oppressed. Her proof is the 23% pay cut she says they suffer from. It doesn’t exist, but it works nicely as a rhetorical argument for some feminists and some activists who insist women are always under threat.
“Two women together” tend to make as much money as two men together, studies have shown quite consistently. That figure is less than hetero married couples make in nearly all cases, yet often is more than unmarried hetero couples make. Again, facts aren’t Karen Paperno’s stong suit.
She can offer any discount she wants. She can even repeat factual inaccuracies to the press. But she won’t go uncorrected.
By the way, Paperno never responded to my E-mail or hardcopy letter. Why should she? She’d have to admit her facts are wrong. This would in turn admit that women and lesbian moms aren’t as weak and disenfranchised as she claims. Though this would affect her store not one jot, it surely would bruise.
Today’s hero: Joseph Hagelmann
This New York City politician told the Daily News (single-pager):
[A]lthough some may believe that we are all white Chelsea boys earning lots of disposable income to spend on exotic Atlantis cruises and haute couture, the reality is that most LGBT New Yorkers are not on the A-list.
If you are, that’s fine – but what about the Latina lesbian single mother from the Bronx who struggles to put food on the table and keep a roof over her kids’ heads?
Indeed.
Social networks for rich gays
I’m going to have to do a real story on the death of Fab and the invention of Distinc.TT, but that’s gonna take a lot of work.