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.

EJennings, just to clarify, I wasn't denying that there is an earnings gap, nor that it should be addressed, I was commenting on the strangeness of controlling for one factor (when attempting to dismiss an inequality) but not another.

In other words, the more a woman does to advance herself for the job market, the more likely it is that she will be a bottom-earner in her field

In terms of root cause, can this be entirely attributed to women taking more time out of work and, on average, working less hours (even when accounting for larger portions of time taken out of work) or are there other factors at play?

My personal view is that while direct discrimination (simply based upon an inherent trait) is very wrong, it would be detrimental to all sectors if the rewards associated with professional development fell by the wayside in an attempt to appease those who are either less able to or less willing to engage in them. The example that stuck with me was a new mother who'd recently returned to work, bemoaning the fact that while she was on maternity leave, other people in my department had continued their professional development and received promotions. She wanted a system where, rather than being able to simply pick up where she left off, she would be promoted as if she had completed the training and extra work required to gain promotion. I feel that implementing such a system would do a great disservice to people who have worked extremely hard and made equally tough life choices as well as being an albatross around the neck of my employer. I realise that this attitude may not be well received here (I'm all for maternity leave but, at some point, I feel it must be acknowledged that having a child is a choice that might include temporary or permanent career limitations).

many seem to believe that women suffer more violence.
Who causes the violence is more relevant than who suffers it. Feminist proposals to deal with violent men will also benefit male victims, something that is also often overlooked

Is that what we should accept? Or should we build a new system?

I would propose that working on destigmatising having a mother working full time with the father taking either part time work or becoming a SAHP might be productive but I'm curious as to what your proposal is.

I would propose that working on destigmatising having a mother working full time with the father taking either part time work or becoming a SAHP might be productive

What do you meant by 'destigmatsing' and what practical steps do you propose to achieve this?

Perhaps we should try a John Rawls type thought experiment. How would we organise a society in which all people gave birth. Producing and raising the next generation is the most fundamental and important task of the human species. Neither those who give birth or those who don't should be disadvantaged.

What do you meant by 'destigmatsing'

I believe there is still a generally held attitude against an otherwise traditional nuclear family where the wife is the major or only breadwinner. Since the majority of people over 16 in the United Kingdom (I'm working on that level since it would be futile to try to attempt to address the issue with one solution across cultural lines) are married and the vast majority of those (99.8%) are in traditional (one male, one female) marriages it seems like a great starting point to closing the earnings gap would be for men to work less hours and women to work more. Not only would this increase earnings in terms of raw hours worked, it would give women a greater chance of promotion due to closer engagement in their careers.

and what practical steps do you propose to achieve this

A good initial step would probably be raising greater awareness of the ability of shared parental leave and gauging the effect based on the subsequent change (if any) in the proportion of maternity leave to paternity leave. At the moment, it's very low. There is actually a government campaign in place at the moment that started early last year so it will be interesting to gauge the effect of that when figures become available.

I see you are avoiding the question, so I'll repeat:

Can I ask what practical steps you and the men of your acquaintance are taking to help address these issues?

I don't understand why posters always ask this question of men but not of the significantly greater number of women who are having similar discussions about the issues faced by their sex.

There is no law against discussion and do you really believe that the majority of posters on here are active with women's shelters etc?

What are you doing about VAWG?

LOL! So the answer to my question is "Nothing". You could have told us that in the first place, though it was pretty obvious all along.

I don't understand why posters always ask this question of men but not of the significantly greater number of women who are having similar discussions about the issues faced by their sex.

Because for decade, women have been out there taking action on the issues they care about, often at considerable cost to themselves. They didn't sit around whinging about not being allowed to vote, or to get abortions, or to have contraception etc. They went out and actively campaigned for these things and more, with great success.

That's because they cared deeply about these things. But you, and the other MRA types who try to derail these discussions with tedious regularity, don't actually care about male suicide or male fatalities at work. If you did, you'd do something about them, but by your own admission you don't. You just resent women centering themselves and putting themselves first.

And you thought we didn't notice.

Some interesting points, Gronky.

As women earn more until the approximate age of motherhood (with motherhood possibly explaining the earnings gap) there is definitely an argument that they could sometimes be the one to stay in the workplace.

However, having worked with many women, and several times being in the minority in a primarily female staffed team, my observations is that most women cherish this time with this newborn.

It often seems that there is a small group of women who blame the system for actions which are largely democratic choices made by the majority of women.

Because for decade, women have been out there taking action on the issues they care about, often at considerable cost to themselves.

So you're riding off the accomplishments of other women, often made decades ago?

Ok.

EJennings, a couple of things spring to mind, I was under the impression that the average number of hours worked has steadily declined and, while Britain may lead Europe in terms of working hours, there has still been a corresponding decline (graph is attached because of an anti-ad blocker):
www.businessinsider.com/how-humans-spend-their-time-2014-12?r=UK&IR=T

Regarding daycare, I agree that it should be more accessible but I personally disagree with the notion of building it into workplaces because that creates a barrier to entry into the marketplace for new businesses in terms of investment if it were mandatory. In terms of commutes, there's simply more of us than there used to be and not everyone can live within a proximity to their workplace that's commutable without a private powered vehicle. My personal hope is that the current trend of options for working from home continues to increase, both freeing more people from a commute and freeing up infrastructure for those whose job mechanics do not allow working from home to commute more quickly.

So you're riding off the accomplishments of other women, often made decades ago?

Lol you really think you're on to a good thing being so evasive?

Who do you think forced the change in abortion laws in Ireland, for example? Or brought about the #metoo movement? Clue: It wasn't men.

So if men genuinely want change on issues such as male suicide, they're going to have to fight for it, as women did and do. But they won't.

So you're riding off the accomplishments of other women, often made decades ago?
This is really desperate- you're presumably a self made man who owes nothing to anyone. Delusional.

Average hours worked includes the unemployed and underemployed.

I'm very sorry if you don't have an academic subscription but those figures are for the average number of hours worked by those with full time jobs:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498307000058

Plenty of women here are actively involved in volunteering in a number of arenas. They don't owe you any details of that whatsoever. The point still stands though. If your sole concern about the afflictions of other men is how useful they are to you as fodder to lecture women on a feminist forum, then we have even less reason to listen to you than we did at the start of your contributions.

Plenty of women here are actively involved in volunteering in a number of arenas. They don't owe you any details of that whatsoever.

Then why would you ask the same of me? I owe no justification for giving my opinions.

The wage gap is significantly comprised of a motherhood penalty. Women who bear the necessary workers are themselves punished in the workplace. And women who don’t bear the necessary workers escape that particular punishment.

No doubt it affects a woman's career in many cases. However, whether this is a penalty depends on whether the woman sees the motherhood aspect as more (or sufficiently) rewarding of whether she is primarily career focused.

One might argue that the man faces a separate distinct penalty. His career doesn't suffer but he potentially loses the ability to prioritise job satisfaction over money (like the woman may be prioritising life satisfaction over money/career). I remember a thread on AIBU lately where a female poster was discussing her engineer husband choosing to become a teacher and dropping from £70k to £24k. This wouldn't likely have been possible it she wasn't also on £70k (which she was).

Then why would you ask the same of me? I owe no justification for giving my opinions.

Because you're the one coming on to a feminist board WATMing. And now you're doing that verbal manspread thing again, insisting that you great gollomping opinions have every right to squat where ever you decide to put them.

The inability of posters like yourself to see how this kind of entitlement posting puts our backs up is precisely why you're not going to get why we would be discussing this in the first place, or why your opinions aren't relevant.

Overall life satisfaction as a measure, eh? So entitled whiners are by definition disadvantaged, while workhorses who are socialized to not complain and just take it with a smile are the privileged ones.
Let me just say: with that as a measure the result is no surprise.

eggofscotland
It kind of comes across that you are trying to raise awareness and support for issues related to men’s welfare in your posts.

If we posted about issues to do with women’s welfare on a website with mainly male subscribers we wouldn’t expect much interest or support.

So if this is an issue you feel passionately go and raise awareness with other men, come together and hopefully there will be positive change for society overall.

However, having worked with many women, and several times being in the minority in a primarily female staffed team

Ah, you're that guy.

It really is the same few men reciting the same lines about suicide, workplace deaths, education and "no pay gap" on this bored, over and over again. It would be nice to have a bit of variation.

I don't understand why you keep telling us rather than going and doing something about it. We don't go onto Pistonheads or whatever its called and tell the men there to start talking about the poor NHS maternity care.