General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUS Ranked 23rd in Women’s Equality in Global Gender Gap Index
But according to the report [PDF], although the US is doing well in women’s education, the country is still struggling to make major progress in closing the gender gap in politics and economics. The US ranks 60th–below India, China, and Uganda–in terms of political empowerment, which takes into account indicators like the ratio of women to men in congress and ministerial positions. Currently, women only make up 18 percent of Congress, having risen only 1 percent since last year. US women also still struggle with a significant wage gap, making an average of 77 cents to every dollar that men make. African-American women make an average of 64 cents to a man’s dollar, and Latina women make 55 cents.
One factor negatively affecting women’s economic equality in the US is the lack of mandatory paid maternity leave and other supportive family services. The US is one of only three countries that has no mandated paid maternity leave. In contrast, Pakistan has 12 weeks of paid maternity leave and Canada has 50 weeks. In the US, federal law requires businesses to give 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but many women can’t afford to take time off unpaid.
https://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2013/10/29/us-ranked-23rd-in-womens-equality-in-global-gender-gap-index/
Top 20 list. Look which country isn't there
http://www.weforum.org/news/increased-political-participation-helps-narrow-global-gender-gap-2013
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Burundi is one of the most impoverished nations on earth. Sure you can have parity there, which means equal crushing poverty for all, and probably no jobs for anyone. At that point, what meaning is there in measuring "economic gap" when everyone is among the poorest on the planet? Of course there's little economic gap, there's no wealth at all.
I'm not usually a Team America type, but something is fishy about this list. Presumably few American women are looking to escape the evil US to live in Burundi, South Africa, the Philippines, Lesotho, or even half the countries in that top 20.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)$11,281 for per capita GDP. Well above Burundi's $619.
But I am sure Burundi has a great school system and awesome facilities for their women's volleyball team.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I used to trivialize the positions of others by missing the actual point and getting more irrational from there, too...
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I told you this last time this issue came up. This isn't the wealthiest nations. It's about gender inequality vs. equality. The report is clear about the criteria they use. All it requires is to read the articles. Wealth and gender equality aren't the same thing. A poor country can be more equitable than a wealthy one. Read the title. It says GENDER gap. Do you understand what gender is? Do you understand that gender inequality isn't the same as how much money the favored male members of a society earn? Some of the oil rich nations are the richest in the world. They don't appear on that list either. How is it that something so basic needs to be explained to you repeatedly?
The next time I see you complaining about the all important issues like marijuana or what Snowden is doing on a given day, shall I point out that the US is wealthier than Burundi so you have nothing to complain about? Will I see you make that same comment in threads on other subjects related to the US? Or is just women who need to be grateful for what they are given and raking below India and China in political participation? Who cares about war anyway? We have more money than Burundi. Should people disenchanted with those policies move to the Philippines or Burundi too, or just women who don't know to keep their mouths shut and be happy with what they are given?
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Kick just for this post
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)will have the same effect the last time I wrote something similar: nothing. So next time a similar study is posted, we'll see the exact same thing again.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)First we had doors. Then we had the loaf of bread. Now when an issue arises we can say "Hey, but the US is wealthier than Burundi."
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I like your idea. 
Response to redqueen (Reply #30)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)The significance of the pic is a mystery to me, but the idea of dismissing their clowning with ridicule is an excellent one.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I never claimed it was a wealth index.
I'm saying that you're ranking countries with great wealth and great educational opportunity with countries that have neither. It's like ranking two naked cavemen, a man and a woman, and saying that because they own nothing, know nothing and make decisions equally, that they should be ranked in an index with countries that have wealth. Such a ranking is meaningless when the "equality" you're comparing is equality of wealth to equality of destitution, equal education to equal ignorance, and equality of real healthcare with equality of no healthcare. Woohoo! X country is much more equally poor, unhealthy and uneducated than we are equally wealthy, healthy and educated. That means they should be put in a ranking ahead of the US and that this ranking actually means something.
Unfortunately this ranking has no meaning at all.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)clearly they'd be better off there.
Or maybe Lesotho.
True, the Phillipines have a per capita GDP of $4,380 and Lesotho has $2,126 compared to $51,704 for the US and $4,352 for Nicaragua.
But at least they are equal.
Equally destitute, but equal.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and the US shouldn't be compared to impoverished and developing countries but to developed countries (like Iceland/Norway/Sweden/Finland/Denmark/Switzerland/etc). Which aren't destitute.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Is they insisted such a view was only advanced by a new member with 18 posts, while here they repeat the exact same position.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The next time you complain about something in the US we don't like. The US is wealthier. Therefore that means we have nothing to complain about. Or is it just women who need to be lucky they are given anything at all?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if you kicked my thread with your own point of view, or even just say "Burundi"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024728809
But I might note, it all my complaint about Republican tax policies in Wisconsin, that not even once did I suggest that made Wisconsin worse than Lesotho, Burundi, or the Phillipines.
Or you might have paid some attention to THIS thread, which died a very lonely death
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024696798
and here's a funny thing about this measurement
"The US ranks 60th–below India, China, and Uganda–in terms of political empowerment, which takes into account indicators like the ratio of women to men in congress and ministerial positions."
The US would rank higher if only Harry Reid had lost, Christine O'Donnell had won, and Linda McMahan had too. We'd rank higher if Sarah Palin was vice president instead of Biden. If Condoleeza Rice was Secretary of State instead of Kerry.
Then we could celebrate the "progress".
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)because American women have it better than some other place. God forbid "liberals" actually want to improve their society rather than continuing to widen inequality and race toward the bottom.
The rest of your post is pure distraction. Your point is clear enough. You consider the fact American women trail the rest of the developed world so unimportant, there is something wrong with even posting a study that says so. What you fail to comprehend is by insisting that half the population is inconsequential, you help keep all of it back, including yourself. It's like the people who complain that workers making $15 hour earn to much because they earn more than them. That's better the attitude in this country for decades and it's why the standard of living for all Americans has dropped. Their view that some have more than they deserve ensures that they themselves see their incomes fall.
The reactions by you and a few others to this thread have provided direct proof for what people jumped all over Seabeyond for referencing about a poster with 18 posts. You are expressing the same argument here.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)And watch your back, Burundi! 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Well, Denmark needs to work a little harder on it, I guess. 
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and of course the social safety net is a bonus to all of society, including women, who benefit from paid maternity leave.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The ideal country in their methodology - the top of the list - would get all 1.00 scores in all the various metrics they measure. Health, education, economy, political influence.
For instance, women's political attainment is measured as women in "minister or parlimentary level" political office ÷ men in similar office weighted by the number of years in office. Setting aside for the moment the fact that 56% of votes cast in the US are from women, The United States does poorly in this metric because women are roughly 50% underrepresented in congress, governorships and the presidency, and have fewer years in office. The US is therefore given a score of .16 where 1.00 would presumably be perfect equality.
Let's look at educational attainment. They define it as the number of women with college education ÷ number of men. Since women dominate college by about the same ratio that men dominate politics, you'd expect to see a value which reflects a similar inequality. On the contrary, we get a 1.00 or a perfect score in that regard.
So to be at the top of the list or to get a perfect set of 1.00 scores in all areas, a country must hold women to be privileged in every way.
"Equality" as the concept is used in the social sciences is completely divorced from what the word actually means.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Are you saying the US doesn't have a problem with gender inequity
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)because more women vote and women go to college. The fact men with less education are favored in employment and earning potential, or that men wield political power to an even greater extent than in China or India, is of course irrelevant. What matters is there are a couple of areas in the US where women outperform men, which runs contrary to what true equality should be--meaning men ahead in all areas. That's my take on it anyway.
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)But it is men he believes are being oppressed.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)For instance, the study methodology suggests... no in fact it says.... that the US is optimally equal (we're tied for #1 with a great many countries) in educational gender equality because women are 50% more likely to go to college than men.
One cannot take seriously people who think "50% more likely" = "equality"
The problem is that inequality means something other than what the study authors insist it means.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Do you believe that men are more oppressed than women in the US, and that women benefit from greater privilege than men? The fact that women outperform men in any area, despite facing discrimination in other insignificant areas that wages and political power,means men are robbed of the true equality that would elevate them to their rightful place above women according to every single criteria?
What is the horrible discrimination that keeps men from voting? Is there some reason they can't compete on an even playing field? Some historical disadvantage? Why is that discrimination keeping women and people of color from higher education is necessary to establish the kind of "equality" you think men deserve?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and your argument has been systematically dismantled. I guess it makes sense that leaves you with no response.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Some people have no standing to criticize anyone's math.
If you get all the cookies, that's equality. If I get them all, it's phallopressive, patriarchal, something something.
Uh, no. And it's incumbent on any honest person to call out the intellectually bankrupt bullshit exemplified by the OP where ever it is found.
Ohio Joe
(21,755 posts)Women have equality and are now oppressing men and only trying to get 'all the cookies'... How very fucked up.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)
The study is clear as to the criteria. Equality is equality. It doesn't assume male privilege and dominance to be somehow natural. Women vote in the US and men rule, but you think that is somehow unequal because why? Women shouldn't vote? Men are entitled to hold all offices? The criteria in the study are transparent and based on apples to apples. Yours are not. 100 percent of the population votes in N Korea. What does that mean in terms of power? Nothing. The US does rank highly in education and not in other areas, which shows how endemic sexism is that lesser educated men are preferred in positions of economic and political power than better educated women.
The equality the study uses is based in fact on equality and not on the assumption that men deserve more simply for being male, rather than merit or qualifications. Concluding that areas women do well in should rank more highly than actual political power or economic wealth reveals a worldview that imagines some aberrant about women out performing men in any area. This report is effort to compare gender equality according to certain criteria rather than assuming men are entitled to more. The fact is when there is an equal playing field, women perform well. But when structural factors keep women from competing and the field is not equal, men continue to excel due to privilege and discrimination against women. That is why a few men, mainly conservatives and MRA types, consider any area in which women excel to be a sign of societal deterioration and oppression of men. Since they see men as entitled to more, they despise an equal playing field and do everything in their power to make sure impediments to equality remain in place.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the maximum scale is 1; 56% of undergraduate degrees are currently earned by women. Figures from 2011: 18.7M men with bachelor's degrees vs 20.1M women. 20.1/18.7=1.07 (not quite 1.1, but the scale stops at 1.0).
"A country must hold women to be privileged in every way"? No, "equality" doesn't mean "privileged" (helpful hint: 100/100=1; if the number of men and women who X is roughly equal then X=1.)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The study authors would give a society in which zero men are educated a score of 1.00.
1.00 is the optimum score and earns that country a #1 ranking in that metric. They reuse this intellectually bankrupt methodology for every measure of social health.
A 1.00 score in all metrics wins. Nothing about their methodology rewards "equality".
Surely you get the problem with the scale that stops at 1.00; namely a score of 0.50 is just as unequal as 2.00, right? It's easy to pretend that it isn't true when you stop counting at 1.00.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Point to it? You're making up bogus claims to support your bogus idea that men, collectively, represent an oppressed class and that society is somehow inherently discrimnatory against men. There are, in fact, studies for the reasons behind the gender gap in college graduation rates that show pretty conclusively that more men drop out of college because the existing inequalities of our current society make it easier for them to do so with less of a financial penalty in the short term (entry level wage gap for men vs women without a degree is $6500). http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/27/college-graduation-gender-salaries/ But please, go on telling yourself that American society has an inequality bias in favour of women if that makes you feel better.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Maybe I need to simplify even further.
Friday is pizza night. My wife and I share a 100 slice pizza. I eat 55 pieces of it, so our Pizza Equality Index is 0.81 (45/55).
Chastised by the unfairness, the next Friday I only eat 50, our PEI becomes 1.00. Yay! Equality! We're #1 on the World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report!
The following Friday, I begin a diet. In a rational not completely intellectually bankrupt world if she were to eat 55 pieces our PEI would become 1.222, and clearly unequal. Sadly, this confuses the point the GGP authors are trying to make, so we stop counting at 1.00. Thus my pizza consumption can be any number between 0 and 50 and still be considered optimally equal.
But what about those dozen bread sticks? Since I only got one slice of pizza this Friday, maybe I can fill up on them? Not so fast. If I eat one of the 100 pizza slices and seven of the bread sticks, our family earns an aggregated Dinner Equality Index of .85. (1.00 and .71 averaged)
In other words, using the methodology of the linked report, if and only if her share of each and every thing ?50% then we've reached equality.
As a second step, these ratios are truncated at the
“equality benchmark”. For all indicators, except the two
health indicators, this equality benchmark is considered
to be 1, meaning equal numbers of women and men.
In the case of the sex ratio at birth variable, the equality
benchmark is set to be 0.944,2 and the healthy life
expectancy benchmark is set to be 1.06.3 Truncating the
data at the equality benchmarks for each variable assigns
the same score to a country that has reached parity
between women and men and one where women have
surpassed men
see page 4
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And again: higher rates of female college graduation are due in part to two things: 1) lesser penalty in wages for men vs women without degrees (which is VERY MUCH a function of inequality; reduce that inequality and you'll reduce the graduation gap); 2) increased minority enrolment in colleges and universities which is largely driven by young women, in part because of corrosive gender stereotypes of masculinity and the perceived value of doing well in school and in extracurricular activities (where there is also a significant gender gap). This latter issue has everything to do with what society tells certain young men they should value, and much less to do with the fact that society has created more opportunities for young women. The fact that there is not 100% equality in college graduation rates is not evidence of a bias favouring women, as you seem to think it is. The wage gap for entry-level workers without degrees is strongly biased in favour of men. And academic success is negatively incentivised among many young men for a variety of cultural reasons having to do with perceived "masculinity".
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Every inequality can be rationalized away in the manner you are doing.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)That isn't a rationalisation; I don't know why you choose to ignore it. Possibly because it's inconvenient to your illconsidered argument.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Which, if the study authors were interested in measuring that metric would earn the US a score of 1.00. Yay! equality!
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Good luck with that... Businesses will start discriminating against young women and wont hire/promote them if they think they might become pregnant.
That's why it might be advantageous to support paternity leave as well in certain situations. That way a company won't favor a man during the hiring process simply because they know he would never have to take a 12-week leave that the company would have to pay for.
Just something to think about.... Forcing a company to pay this only for women could backfire on women pretty badly. Companies already routinely discriminate against some women who are mothers because of restricted availability and such. They use it as an excuse to pay men a higher salary.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)All of that could be addressed by severe penalties for such discrimination, which already exists in the law. All that is required is for people to value equality, but the fact is some benefit from inequality and fight tooth and nail to perpetuate it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Regardless what the supreme court may think...corporations are not people. Therefore it cannot think about equality. The only thing a corporation cares about is it's bottom line. You can't even find a company these days that wants to pay ONE day of sick leave for an employee that has the flu. How do you think they will react to women wanting paid maternity leave for 12 weeks?
And I am sure you are well aware how impossible it is to prove discrimination during a hiring process. I can tell you for a fact that it is rampant throughout the country....especially with regards to race...but gender too. Every company can get out of it by simply saying, "Well, I liked this guy's interview better than her's..."
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)lawsuits are won all the time. It may be extremely difficult in a particular case, but patterns are demonstrable and court cases are won on that basis. DOJ also acts to penalize companies in such cases.
Your argument reminds me of the one that we shouldn't raise the minimum wage because companies will move abroad or hire fewer workers. People come up with anything to justify the status quo. Injustice is injustice, no matter how one dresses it up. I myself don't see this continual rush to the bottom as beneficial even to men. You know, men have kids too, and some of them actually care about those children and the society they live in. Some actually choose to serve as caregivers and/or want a better future for their children, boys and girls alike, who might one day live in a US that aspires to advance toward joining the industrialized West rather than continue to pursue it's race into Third World poverty.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You want that leave to only be available to women, but that only continues to lock women into the caregiver gender role. And it keeps men in the provider role.
You are actually unintentionally feeding into the patriarchy there...
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Show me where I said that? No where. Nor is that what most laws provide for, including existing US law which grants unpaid maternity leave to both parents. How can you not know that? You move from one excuse to another. You are the one who spoke out in outrage that maternity leave be paid for. You raised the issue and argued it shouldn't happen because it might upset the corporations wouldn't like it. The thing is you dismissed it in believing it to about women, but any thoughtful liberal knows it's about a better society. Trying to deflect your poutrage onto m e is transparent. It's becoming increasingly difficult to take your arguments seriously.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I suggested that this will be an additional way for corporations to discriminate against women. And you somehow see this as me taking the side of the corporation? LOL!
It's not my fault you don't understand my style of communication.
Response to davidn3600 (Reply #34)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Provide a quote where I said that.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)First off... "maternity" leave is defined as leave for the mother...not father. Now perhaps the true intention was to mean for either parent. But that's not the definition of the term....maternity means motherhood.
Second, when I suggested there should be some form of paid paternity leave for men (assuming we would have paid leave for women) in order to hedge against discrimination by corporations against women during a hiring process, you suggested that can be easily fixed by passing more strict anti-discrimination laws with "severe penalties." You completely ignored and blew off my suggestion that fathers should have the same benefits as mothers.
Based on what you wrote and the tone of your posts, you seemed to be advocating for a privilege for women. Not directly...there is no quote of you saying that. But the way you blew off my suggestion of equal benefits and went off into legal fantasy land suggests you were trying to avoid my humanist/egalitarian approach to a potential problem. That's the way I interpreted it, anyway.
I don't think you realize we both want basically the same thing. But your approach to these problems doesn't take into account the other side of the coin. You seem to be approaching every gender problem this with the question: How can we make this better for women? While I approach these problems with the question: How can we make this fair for everyone?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)at all. I see no evidence for it, quite the contrary.
I implied nothing of the sort. You used the term maternity leave. You could have said parental leave. You raised the issue. You insisted it was undoable.
Response to davidn3600 (Reply #23)
U4ikLefty This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Laws are not advised for passage based on whether it is assumed employers will use it as an excuse to discriminate. What would be done in that circumstance is to investigate and punish the discrimination.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)"If you make us pay taxes, we'll just have to move our business interests over seas."
I personally think it should be legal to groin kick any CEO who makes such a threat.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It is in every other "civilized" country, after all.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
mathematic
(1,439 posts)So it seems like we're doing pretty well in that category.
The top 5 in order are Norway, Mongolia, Burundi, Malawi, and Bahamas.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)in economic participation? I see the figure that women earn 77 cents on the dollar? Did you find that figure in the full report?
mathematic
(1,439 posts)It's got the breakdown of all the subcategory rankings.
Also notable is that there were 32 ties for 1st in the Health index. The US was 33, .0004 behind 1st. This isn't an issue in the overall ranking, which takes an average of the scores, but it is a bit misleading if you're just giving subcategory rankings.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I tried looking for it but my PDF reader is clunky. I'll try again later.
