Let's say there are 100 poor people and 10 of them are homeless. There are 60 poor women and 40 poor men altogether (60% men). Eight of the 10 homeless are men and two of them are women (80% men).
Pat, I should have followed up on your idea before. It is concrete and simple. Thanks. Let's make it 1000 instead of 100. So we get:
5% of the 1000 poor are homeless N=50
of these 50 80% are men N=40
of these 50 20% are women N=10
95% of the 1000 poor are poor but not homeless N=950
of the 950 60% are women N=570
of the 950 40% are men N=380
homeless men (40) plus "poor" men (380) = 420
homeless women (10) plus "poor" women (570) = 580
Given the above conditions there are more poor women then there are men. Using Tony's statement about homeless being 3-5% and women being 60% of the poor there is no other conclusion that can be drawn other than there are more poor women than there are men. Can you show us one Tony that comes out with more men being poor? I don't think so.
What I was trying to say on top of this is that by diluting the definition of poor it has accordingly included more women. i.e. older women who outnumber men by a long shot living on a fixed income, but living comfortably, are considered "poor" by these govt standards. By doing so they are artificially creating a statistic that bloats the numbers of the poor and makes women the chief victims.