The Economist: societies that treat women badly are poorer and less stable

[VikingVolva]

www.economist.com/international/2021/09/11/societies-that-treat-women-badly-are-poorer-and-less-stable

A though provoking article - behind a paywall, but it says pretty much what in in the title. Nations which treat women badly are more likely to suffer violent unrest; and studying geopolitics through the prism of sex suggests trouble in store for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and even India

No shit, Sherlock... does it examine whether it's cause or effect or a vicious circle?

Look at the Roe and Wade case post legislation, it changed America for the better

I don't have a subscription - not sure I would really use it - and of course it's stating the obvious but it does need repeating unfortunately.

I think it's well known that societies with a disproportionate number of young men are unstable. This is just the flip side of that. And yes, I also worry about the male to female ratio and value in many countries.

@ErrolTheDragon

No shit, Sherlock... does it examine whether it's cause or effect or a vicious circle?

Yes, this.

And some countries treat everyone more poorly.

Maybe the article goes into this but there are so many variables with this kind of thing.

It's a bit chicken and egg really isn't it.

Which is the cause of which?

Certainly when women and girls get educated and more control over fertility then there's benefits across the board.

But lots of men don't like that/ religions say no.

How to improve things has been known for ages.

If the majority of men don't want it, not going to happen. And plenty don't as means ceding some control/ power.

Largely but not completely true. It's complicated by many other things Technically, Saudi Arabia is very stable and rich compared for example to Mozambique (last wall about 30 yes ago, ongoing instability) yet the latter let's women drive, watch sports etc. I don't know if the article also accounts for resources and foreign interest in certain countries more than others.
And I agree with NiceGerbil about chicken egg. Some countries were "forced" to open up opportunities for women because they have had more resources for the "competition" to lessen. So women entered the workforce more, more birth control, more educated women to fight for their rights (and powerful men feeling less need to control basic resources) and so women clawed some power. I'm not expressing this well but hope it makes sense (i.e extreme poverty can trigger more power competition and coalesce power in hands of few men so poverty can worsen power struggle/imbalance).
In fact several countries with the most oppressive laws against women are not the poorest. They are rich (Saudi Arabia, the Emirates are by no means poor) while some of the poorest have fairly decent prowomen governance (Most Southern, East and West) Africa

I thought it was interesting because of who is saying it and the reach of The Economist.

I stand corrected.

Countires leas by women have, I many but not Al cases, done better fighting Covid.

I did read that this wasn't so much because they were led by women, it was countires that are more egalitarian have done and egalitarian countries are more likely to accept a woman to lead them.

Sorry for awful typing.

I am more think than I drunk I am.

Its hardly news. Countries/cultures/regions which mistreat women are really backwards. Meanwhile egalitarian countries are prosperous.

I'd say that technologically advanced countries, which will be rich, make the liberation of women feasible. It's not an absolute link - Saudi again - but where things are achieved only by physical labour and where the economy is agricultural, men's physical strength will give them a power edge and the reproductive capacity of women to produce labourers will be valued (read exploited).

India is a massive tech country.

I suppose it's so big that areas are v different though...?

Saudi wealth is oil surely?

China also massive when it comes to tech.

If not for oil, Saudi Arabia would still be stone age.
Real prosperity is still in Western Europe and North America.

@CatsArePeople

Its hardly news. Countries/cultures/regions which mistreat women are really backwards. Meanwhile egalitarian countries are prosperous.

The wealth of a country is way more complicated than that.

Massive historical things like being conquered, or part of an empire. Corruption. Actions by outside actors having disasterous consequences. Civil war. I mean on and on.

The USA is rich and it's women's rights situation is divided, highly divisive, rights are often denied or under attack, and in general not great.

There are other countries that are shit on women's rights that are not 'backwards'

This is a red herring. Totally.

It's covered briefly in the Friday eduction of the Economist's "The Intelligence" podcast if you want to hear more.

@CatsArePeople

If not for oil, Saudi Arabia would still be stone age. Real prosperity is still in Western Europe and North America.

If not for empire, slavery, exploitation of other people's oil, Western Europe and Northern America.... I dont think Saudi Arabia's oil-derived is the issue there. Regardless of its source, they are wealthy as are many of the Emirates hence why we are saying its not just women's rights = wealthy and prosperity.

@PermanentTemporary, much of this is very very true. My job is related so I am biased but when you live in a country where you are waking up at 4 am to do manual hoe-based farming, collect water, firewood, wash clothes by hand in the river, etc there is hardly time for education or for you to earn adequate income etc. Topped limited control over reproduction (for various reasons including men's power and limited financing of basic reproductive health services) ....