"Cooking the Books!" April 2012 - Between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women.

"Cooking the Books!" April 2012 - Between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women.(Factcheck).On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney has been hammering a statistic that “over 92 percent of the jobs lost under this president were lost by women,” evidence, he says, that President Obama’s policies amount to a “war on women.” Romney’s statistic is accurate, as far as it goes. But it’s not the whole story.
Looking back at the whole recession, men have lost many more jobs than women. But the biggest job losses for men came earlier in the recession, and recovery for men has come faster than it has for women.
With Romney under attack from the Obama campaign for policies it says are anti-woman (such as Romney’s opposition to abortion rights and support for federal de-funding of Planned Parenthood), Romney has tried to turn the tables, pointing to a statistic that shows the unemployment rate for women is recovering more slowly from the recession.
Here’s what Romney said in a Fox News interview on April 11 (at about the 5:45 mark):

Romney, April 11: He [Obama] has lost 800,000 jobs during his presidency. And by the way, do you know what percentage of those jobs lost were lost by women? Over 92 percent of the jobs lost under this president were lost by women. His policies have been, really, a war on women.

Romney’s statistic is accurate. It’s true, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women, and that among women there has been a net loss of 683,000 jobs. The Romney campaign did the math and calculated that 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama were lost by women.

Now June 2012 - 766,000 More Women Unemployed Today Than When Obama Took Office. (CNSNews).The number of American women who are unemployed was 766,000 individuals greater in May 2012 than in January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In January 2009, there were approximately 5,005,000 unemployed women in the United States, according to BLS. In May 2012, there were 5,771,000.
The BLS derives its employment statistics from an overall number it calls the civilian non-institutional population. This includes all Americans 16 or over who are not on active duty in the military and who are not in an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home. From this civilian non-institutional population, BLS determines a subset it calls the civilian labor force, which includes all members of the civilian non-institutional population who are either employed or have made specific efforts to find work in the past four weeks. People who are not employed and who have not sought work in the past four weeks are considered by the BLS to have dropped out of the labor force.
Unemployed people are those who are in the labor force but do not have a job—despite having looked for one in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the overall civilian labor force that does not have a job—that is, who have sought a job in the past four weeks and not found one.
In January 2009, according to BLS, the unemployment rate for American women was 7.0 percent. In May 2012, it was 7.9 percent.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the female civilian non-institutional population was 121,166,000. In May 2012, it hit 125,788,000—an increase of 4,622,000 since January 2012.
However, at the same time the female civilian non-institutional population was increasing, the percentage participating in the labor force was declining—following a long-term trend. In January 2009, 59.4 percent of women participated in the labor force, while in May 2012 it was 57.8.
Hmmmmmm..........Some one is seriously 'manipulating the statistics for electoral purposes, now WHO might that be?Read the full story here.