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.

The romans started that one didnt they?

It depends on your perspective (and which sources you trust), considering she led an uprising rather than a direct response to an ongoing invasion. I would say it's more muddy than if she faced down the Romans at the coast, for example

#notahistorian

Its it just gronky

As i say though its not as straightforward as it sounds as most of the queens were married and/or led by advisors

Having said that...on paper i can see how that would work

But men would still tend to start wars as there would be more of them...or is that not how 'tend' works...dunno

Plus that was europe and from1480 til 1912...which seems to be very precise

Interesting though

newyear is just showing off her knowledge of queen names there

#gotaBatolevel

Maybe the queens needed to start wars to show they didn't have the weak and feeble female body and mind thingy?

Excellent point gronky

Got me there *Rufus"

That was Elizabeth wasnt it

I may have the body of a feeble women...or whatever it was she said

But men would still tend to start wars as there would be more of them...or is that not how 'tend' works...dunno

Tend, as in a contraction of tendency. In other words, if you put 10,000 chickens and 10 foxes in a barn in close quarters, even though there are probably going to be a lot more chickens killing other chickens in the ensuing crush, it wouldn't be reasonable to say chickens tend to kill other chickens more than foxes tend to kill chickens.

I dunno gronky those chickens are sly fuckers

Rufus Elizabeth was who I was thinking of, but couldn't remember the quote and CBA to look it up. I'm supply to be asleep - the toddler beast wakes at 5am normally!

i know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too"

Found it

Go to bed new

That's the badger

Plus that was europe and from1480 til 1912...which seems to be very precise

Forgot to add, that would seem to be a broadly fair timeline since that starts just after the fall of the Byzantine (East Roman) empire and the ensuing closure of the power vacuum it left in its wake. Prior to that, it would be rather hard to divide the international wars from the internal conflicts given that Europe was more of a hodge-podge of warring states. That said, it's a very broad definition with multiple possible interpretations but there is some logic to it.

I dunno gronky those chickens are sly fuckers

That said, it's a very broad definition with multiple possible interpretations but there is some logic to it

Yep..history is fascinating

I'm pretty sure the outcome of that study could have been predicted before the data was collated.

In many countries you can't live as a single woman, and single men are worse off than married ones.
So its not surprising that men will come at the bottom of the social pile, its an artefact of the way the study was conducted. Poor men who can't afford to attract a wife are worse off than poor men who can.

Technically, 50% of British female Prime Ministers have started a war

Technically General Galtieri started it by invading British territory to divert public attentionfrom his country's economic problems and his regime's human rights violations. I could not say a good word about Mrs Thatcher at the time but she was right to take action to defend the Falklands islanders.

Whoever declares the war starts the war

Technically we started the war with Germany in 1939

And thatcher declared war on argentina

Im pretty positive thats the case...though i once got into a massive argument on here about it so im going to run away if that happens
again

(Off to bed...night all)

You may be right but I'm not going to hold that against Mrs Thatcher. It might be right technically but it's a bit like quibbling about who was responsible for WWII.

If the commenr was meant only in the technical sense fine but if it was intended to criticise Thatcher- no. This is one of 2 things she did get right.

The other btw was introducing the apparently novel idea that absent fathers should be responsible for the financial support of their children. The practice of the CSA left a lot to be desired but the initial gnashing of teeth was amusing. I actually sat through friends ranting about how unfair it was because someone they knew could not afford to have a baby with his second wife because he had been ordered to support his first family. Tough.

I once heard someone spluttering with rage at the outrageous idea a child conceived on a ONS was entitled to support- or even worse where the mother was a prostitute. This was always the case in law but it was astonishing how many people didn't seem to understand this.

Not all wars are equal either. Would be a much more interesting statistic if the human cost was also measured.

Queens generally only happen in the UK when something has gone haywire with succession and there's already trouble brewing about their claim to the throne.

It's nice that there is some data around now to provide some extra balance and perspective.