New gender gap index shows men most disadvantaged

[Imnobody4]

The backlash continues, I'm starting to get really scared now.

<a class="break-all" href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-heres-what-happens-when-the-gender-gap-index-is-adjusted-for-bias#click=t.co/rvRvZNbSl2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-heres-what-happens-when-the-gender-gap-index-is-adjusted-for-bias#click=t.co/rvRvZNbSl2
Entitled “A Simplified Approach to Measuring National Gender Inequality,” authors Gijsbert Stoet from the U.K.’s University of Essex, and David C. Geary from the University of Missouri, contend that the GGGI is unreliable, because it is “biased to highlight women’s issues.” They argue that the GGGI does not measure men’s areas of disadvantage, such as compulsory military service, harsher punishments for the same crime, and workplace deaths — 95 per cent male.

By definition, they say, the GGGI “excludes the possibility that men can be less well off than women – this is because the GGGI focuses on women’s advancement.” As well, they contend that the GGGI uses indicators that are only relevant to elite women, and that the GGGI includes indicators more reflective of choice than of discrimination.

The researchers propose a truly gender-neutral set of metrics for calculating equality scores, named the Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI). BIGI focuses on three factors: educational opportunities (literacy, years of primary and secondary education), healthy life expectancy (years expected to live in good health), and overall life satisfaction which, taken together, are the “minimum ingredients of a good life.”
Stoet and Geary calculated BIGI scores over five years (2012 through 2016) for 134 nations, representing 6.8 billion people. They relied on GGGI reports published by the World Economic Forum and the Gallup World Poll for data. To their surprise, they found that using the BIGI as a yardstick, men are on average disadvantaged in 91 countries, while women are disadvantaged in 43 countries, most of them economically under-developed. Sometimes the deviations from parity are quite small or even negligible, as for example in the case of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Turkey, China and Switzerland.

Men such as ourselves, men with a concern for men’s issues and a sympathy for feminism, should be trying as hard as possible to take up space in the public arena.
So a man says that men should try as hard as possible to take up space in feminism and you agree
But women define feminism in their terms and you argue vociferously

Think your sexism is showing

Also, Quentin, men with a concern for men’s issues and a sympathy for feminism would be the type of men who understand how the patriarchy harms men, too. But do I hear any of the blokes on here allying to take down patriarchy? There's a good chance they'll deny that patriarchy even exists.

userschmoozer I read your post about Jessica Eaton and thought “ooh that’s interesting” just forgot to type it lol!! Sure there are a few like me!!!

Hey antisocialinjusticepacifist I have tried to respond to egg’s statements and ask questions. He hasn’t responded back though.
I’m genuinely a bit baffled by his point of view.
He mentioned above that feminism shouldn’t negate the need for egalitarianism- agreed.
But I don’t see that egalitarianism in general automatically comes under the umbrella of feminism.
Feminism is mainly concerned with females surely?
It’s kind of like a meat eater saying I only eat meat that has been raised humanely therefore I’m a vegetarian and vegetarians need to campaign with me for humane meat production.
They would say no you’re not a vegetarian and you need to form your own group of meat eaters to campaign for humane meat production. We will only be concerned about the foods we eat.
Surely?
So why is it not ok for feminists to be openly focused on issues around women’s welfare?

I'm 47 and we haven't had compulsory military service here in the US since before I was born.

I don't see how the things I do personally have any bearing on my opinions about the issues discussed, but I'll bite as several posters seem determined to know 'what I'm doing to help'.

I've been involved in a number of initiatives which have benefitted young males predominantly from low socio economic backgrounds. Most recently, I spent five years (until I moved a year ago) volunteering as an asst boxing instructor at a club which offered free tuition to local youths.

Far from encouraging violent behaviour, it had an extremely beneficial effect on those who persevered with it. Prior to getting into training, some of them didn't do much else apart from hang around smoking weed and being antisocial - talking about 14-15 yo boys here. I've seen a fair few completely change their outlook on life when given something to focus on and substitute training for getting wasted etc. Similar story with some others who suffered from poor self esteem due to being overweight or being bullied at school - becoming adept at boxing generally helps with both of these issues.

More recently, I've managed to convince two of my driver's mates to take their Class 2 hgv license. One started driving last week and the other has now passed his practical (the hardest bit) and will be booking his final theory module when he gets paid. Both of these individuals are young working class men in their early 20s with poor qualifications and who were earning

Well I’m still not sure how relevant this is to feminism, kind of seems like the meat eater presenting their work they have done around ethical meat production to a vegetarian group to be honest...
Well done?

Well, you asked what I was doing to help my fellow men.

Tbh, part of the reason why I couldn't originally be arsed to reply was because I knew it was a disingenuous question to which nobody really cared about the answer - just a tool to say 'you moan about male hardship but don't do anything to help'.

I'm not here to preach my infinite wisdom. It's just that some feminists actively fight against initiatives designed to help men as if the improvement for both sexes is mutually exclusive.

Things like the resistance to International Men's Day and downplaying of male suicide (I saw a poster on here recently trying to imply that men who commit suicide often kill their partner first, which doesn't make sense given that 84 men commit suicide each week compared with two killing their partners).

And another poster saying that women only have children because their male partners 'pester them until they give in'.

This type of misinformation is not harmless if taken at face value.

It's just that some feminists actively fight against initiatives designed to help men as if the improvement for both sexes is mutually exclusive
Receipts?

Women-Only Craft Beer Forum Shut Down By Men’s Rights Activist
munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/bj44zq/women-only-craft-beer-forum-shut-down-by-mens-rights-activist

Women’s co-working space The Wing forced to change admission policy to include men
www.feministcurrent.com/2019/01/04/whats-current-womens-co-working-space-wing-forced-change-admission-policy-include-men/

Glasgow Rape Crisis loses Children in Need funding because it doesn't do enough for men and boys.
twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/1027207087770746881

In fact there is an MRA group dedicated to closing women only support groups and events.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/men-rights-unruh-act-women-discrimination/

Well, most MRAs are neckbeards who really just need to get laid! You don't want to be comparing yourself to them.

Need to read the articles properly, but it appears that the issue was that they weren't deemed to be doing enough for men, rather than somebody trying to actively obstruct their attempt to help women (which admittedly may have been the outcome). Whether they should have been focusing on men too is another debate.

I might start a hashtag - #mentoo

(not being serious).

Seems a bit harsh to have shut down the female craft beer one. However, I do think a lot of MRAs have sprung to defence over a perceived assault on men by some feminists.

I don't think that this is universally the case by any means, but I certainly read plenty of stuff which makes me understand how somebody could reach this conclusion - especially if they had a chip on their shoulder and were looking for it. In many ways, I regard certain types of feminists as the parallel of MRAs.

No debate needed; sexual trauma therapy services are single sex.

So do you have receipts for the feminists who are shutting down men's services?

Receipts?

If you mean references, it's been discussed on here loads before. The University of York banning IMD (which was going to discuss male suicide) the day after a male student killed himself is a commonly mentioned one. A petition was signed against it (several hundred signatures) and they released a statement saying they were going to 'focus on the issues faced by women' instead - despite them already having a feminist society but having vetoed male students' attempts to create a men's issues group. They refused to reinstate IMD even after a petition of several thousand was signed in protest of it being cancelled. And Jess Phillips scoffing in parliament about IMD and literally laughing at the guy's proposal (which she was forced to apologise for) was something which would never have happened in reverse.

There are quite a few examples.

I'm not trying to score points. I just don't see why so many people (both MRAs and feminists) see men's and women's rights as being in competition.

women's rights are in competition with male privilege, not male rights

But male privilege is a theory, not a fact like IMD being cancelled to refocus more attention on women's issues.

Undoubtedly, the people at the top are mostly men, but most blokes know that they're not going to realistically be able to compete with people like Donald Trump, Bill Gates, etc. The top 1%.

I'll never be a CEO.

It only works when you look at men as a class, not as loads of individuals, the majority of whom aren't overly privileged despite experiencing both unique benefits and also disadvantages when compared to women.

Yes, most people are not at the top, thats why its the top not the ground floor. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme that funnels wealth to the apex.

I'm not denying that.

But I often feel there's another side to many of the commonly discussed issues. For example, I fully agree that many women are left in a disadvantaged/vulnerable situation careerwise after having children - especially in the situation of relationship breakdown etc. But on the flipside, I know a lot of guys who hate their jobs and only do them to support their family - what they've sacrificed is sometimes the freedom to pursue a career that is fulfilling in ways that aren't just financially focused.

Like one of my best mates who earns circa £50k in corporate sales and always says he'd love to join me on the road and settle for £35k but can't because 'the wife would never let me.' He hates his job but his wife seems extremely content being at home with their children.

If you don’t accept that there are some men (a significant minority) who use violence of various sorts, both online and irl, to target and harm and deprive women of opportunities/ money / property, who view women as their property/ lesser than / objects for their use and abuse and who are enabled by a system of governance that significantly advantages men eg justice and law enforcement-

• then there’s no common basis for any discussion.