Global Gender Gap Report I: Inequality = Equality
November 1st, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.To read the Global Gender Gap Report for 2009 is to enter a truly Orwellian world (WEForum, 2009). (And please note that I don't like the word "Orwellian" because it's overused. But the GGG Report is Orwellian as I will soon make clear.)
The Global Gender Gap Report is a publication of the World Economic Forum which is based in Geneva. However neutral its title, the Report's authors have no intention of impartially informing us about relative gender disparities around the world. As Canadian journalist Barbara Kay has said in another context, "when [they] say 'gender' they mean 'women's interests.' Just so.
Indeed, read the Global Gender Gap Report from cover to cover and, apart from being terminally bored, one would never guess that men or boys suffer unequal treatment or outcomes anywhere on earth. And that's because, in the Report, anti-male inequality is simply defined out of existence.
Here's how they do it. The Report uses four categories to determine the relative gender "equality" score for particular countries or regions - economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival. Each of those categories is then broken down into subcategories and each subcategory is weighted. For example, the education category has subcategories for percentage of males and females in primary school, secondary school and tertiary school, and literacy among males and females.
Each category is scored on a 0 - 1 basis with '0' signifying total inequality and '1' signifying complete equality of the sexes in that category. Categories are then combined to give an overall score for each country. The closer to 1 then, the better, at least according to the authors.
But there's a slight problem with that (actually there are several). Any score under 1 signifies not simply gender inequality, but specifically anti-female inequality. So obviously, any score over 1 signifies anti-male inequality, right? Wrong. There are no scores over 1. You see, according to the Global Gender Gap Report, any time a nation favors men, it's called gender inequality, which is bad, and any time a nation favors women it's called "equality" which "from a values and social justice perspective... is long overdue."
In short, anti-male inequality is specifically defined as equality. In the world in which the authors live, there's anti-female inequality, equality and nothing else. That's why I used the word 'Orwellian.'
Here's an example. Turn to page 184 which is where the figures for the United States are to be found. Under "Educational Attainment," we see the four subcategories I mentioned previously. Men and women are equal in the literacy subcategory, but in each of the other three - primary, secondary and tertiary education - there is a higher percentage of girls and women than boys and men. So clearly, according to the criteria laid down by the Report, girls and women do better than boys and men in education in the United States. Ergo, the country's score in this category is 1 which signifies "equality." Inequality equals equality. See how it works?
According to that scoring methodology, if a nation sent only girls to school and denied boys any form of education at all, male and female education would be considered equal. That nation would receive the coveted score of 1.
Now, I know I don't have to point out the obvious, but I will anyway: scoring the way the Report does totally misrepresents the relative equality or inequality of the sexes. It's like a basketball game between a girl's team and a boy's team in which each basket scored by a girl counts two points and each by a boy counts zero. The final score won't tell you much about which is the better team.
When anti-female bias counts for something and anti-male bias counts for nothing, don't be surprised when not a single nation is found to be gender equal. And that of course is precisely what the Global Gender Gap Report finds. How could it be otherwise?
I'll do more on the Global Gender Gap Report soon.
Thanks to Greg for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.340 seconds.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
we should have real equality and cut women only govt programs...
November 1st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
My lord...Robert, could you please identify the page and location of the "from a values and social justice perspective" quote? I need to see it with my own eyes just to confirm it.
If they really said that, then I am simply in horror. Do these so-called "liberals" and "progressives" realize how medieval and simplistic that mentality is? Are they practically saying outright that the individual boys who were born into this generation deserve to suffer as some sort of penance for the (real or alleged) sins of their forefathers? These are the same sort of people who criticize conservative religious sentiments of Original Sin, saying that it is primitive and superstitious to believe that a baby carries with it some sin from the past that needs to be accounted for! And yet the turn around and say that prejudice and discrimination against present day boys and men is perfectly justified, because of the sins of the past! Those male individuals haven't done anything to hurt women! They've just been born male!
"The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice." -Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
You're certainly right, Robert: that's Orwellian, in more ways than one. Besides the ambiguous meaning of "equality," they're more than willing to exercise some impressive doublethink in the bargain.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I must admit to being bemused a couple of years ago when UN umbrella organisations were celebrating women having longer life expectancies than men everywhere on the planet. I've consoled myself with the notion that they were naive and didn't immediately realise what that meant in it's entirity.
But this, from the World Economic Forum of all places, goes beyond that to chilling.
Have we reached a point where any disadvantage or disprivilege to any man or boy anywhere is considered to be of no consequence?
At the very least it could be made clear in the title of this report and it's promotion that it only measures any disadvantage suffered by females.
I do wonder if anybody has stopped and wondered how this disregard for the welfare of fully half of humanity will be viewed in the future.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Who cares about wars that young boys are recruited and die for, who cares about the occupational health of boys who work in hazardous jobs to help support their families, who cares about the higher incidence of malnutrition in boys, the higher suicide rate, the lower educational scores. Who cares. Let women be the only gender left on the planet. Then see how they like it.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
"john Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
we should have real equality and cut women only govt programs..."
Harper tried that here in CAnada and he was practically crusified for it. He tried to cut out the women only stuff where it should be applied to "PEOPLE" stating they were PEOPLE issues not Women issues. For that he was calleda sexist and they organized bra burnings.
That was only a few years ago.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Who was the feminist who stated that the aims were nothing less than equality for women and nothing more than equality for men?
November 1st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
jon....thanks for the follow up on my comment...i didn't know about that...but not surprised...the poltical correctness and feminist hold on society is very strong...but the message needs to get out...or the decline of males in college will continue....and how then will women get money from men?!...who will pay for dinner on dates?!..
November 1st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
i wish men would organize and complain like women have !!
November 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
70% of divorce are filed by women, and yet 97% of allimony is paid by men. Sounds like inequality to me. Why aren't the feminist burning their bras over this one?
November 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
By using the "women as victim" pretext...one segment of society can stay in the orderly, educated, patriarchy...while keeping the rest of society in the perpetual matriarchal underclass of uneducated laborers.
But see i believe their is a god. And believe when he says the prideful will fall, and the meek shall inherit the earth.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
# 2ndwife too Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Who cares about wars that young boys are recruited and die for, who cares about the occupational health of boys who work in hazardous jobs to help support their families, who cares about the higher incidence of malnutrition in boys, the higher suicide rate, the lower educational scores. Who cares. Let women be the only gender left on the planet. Then see how they like it.
I agree men have been FAR too previlaged and abusive and oppressive towards women...
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 am
I have a feeling that men who notice the injustices that appears in this article and others we read on this forum that at some point we should witness a decline in the momentum that is propelling feminist to acquire more gains in the domestic and public sphere even if its better and more than equal nothing will stop this fury unless the situation becomes so apparent that the feminist armies are looking to take more than its equal share of the powers already we see a disparity in education and labor force and it just gets worse but for some unknown reason most of the men in power are not concerned.
The time for a collective movement on the part of men is close but I believe society is not ready to accept that women have archived equality and feminist group are working overtime to perpetuate the notion that they are still behind their objectives to be equal
and its working that is the reason they will not want to admit that there is disparity in their favor. When the women liberation movement started society was ready to accept that there was a need to give women equal rights no one at that time could dispute their claims of injustices and still today most believe the inequalities still exist. There is some good news
a lot of issues that pertains to men and boys are in the news and society are taken notice
of the situation of boys in education and in divorce courts we have a few excellent writers
who never fail to report any radical information against men and we even had a show host on TV who went public about DV of women on men to me that is a big step and lets not forget the court decision in favor of having placement available for men in a women shelter
I would not have guess this would happen when it did there was tremendous amount of effort from a small group of men for this to happen. I think all that we can expect to happen
for men are small victories because that is what society will allow for now but they are gains.
I my opinion I don't believe we should expect a mens movement to counter for the progress of women even if it appears unbalance for men not all social changes are done
overnight womens liberation was an exception it was very successful we saw many changes in a very short time and we all are trying to adapt but men are having a harder time to cope and it seems no one will give them a chance for them to resolve their predicaments but throughout history we have witness men with their back against the wall
with the great depression and world wars and most recently the man-cession they have beating the odds each and every time the courage never fail them and this courage today will also not fail the men that are having their backs against the wall and each of us will need to find the same courage before we are ready for a men movement but it will come its is inevitable.
To Glenn and Robert thank you for giving us hope and courage to continue our efforts.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 am
Something I noticed as well
Just take Russia for example, a 14 year lower life expectancy.....EQUALITY, what else?
( http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/10/global-gender-gap-report-2009.html )
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
From Page 4
Construction of the Index
The Global Gender Gap Index is constructed using a four-step process, outlined below.
Convert to ratios
First, all data are converted to female/male ratios. For example, a country with 20% of women in ministerial positions is assigned a ratio of 20 women / 80 men = 0.25 on this variable.This is to ensure that the Index is capturing gaps between women and men’s attainment levels rather than the levels themselves.
Truncate data at equality benchmark
As a second step, these ratios are truncated at the “equality benchmark”. On all variables, except the two health variables, this equality benchmark is considered to be 1, meaning equal numbers of women and men. In the case of the sex ratio at birth, 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 bench- marks for each variable translates to
assigning the same score to a country that has reached parity between women and men and one where women have surpassed men.
The type of scale chosen determines whether the Index is rewarding “women’s empowerment” or “gender equality”.4 To capture “gender equality”, two possible scales were considered. One was a negative-positive scale capturing the size and direction of the gender gap. This scale essentially penalizes either men’s advantage over women or women’s advantage over men, and gives the highest points to absolute equality. The second was a “one-sided” scale that measures how close women are to reaching parity with men but does not reward or penalize countries for having a gender gap in the other direction. Thus it does not reward countries for having exceeded the parity benchmark. We find the one-sided scale more appropriate for our purposes.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Page 41. Table D1. Primary education enrolment: Ratio of females to males
132 countries are ranked. In 49 of them, women's enrollment is below men's... but in 49 of them it's above men's. In 34 of them it's equal.
Page 42. Table D2. Secondary education enrolment: Ratio of females to males
In 58 countries, it's below men's... but in 76, it's above them.
Page 43. Table D3. Tertiary education enrolment: Ratio of females to males
In 37 countries, it's below men's... but in 86, it's above them.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:39 am
And we can ask this guy why he developed the methodology the report used, and what "We find the one-sided scale more appropriate for our purposes" means:
Ricardo Hausmann is Director of Harvard’s Center for International Development and Professor of the Practice of Economic Development at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Previously, he served as the first Chief Economist of the Inter-American Development Bank (1994–2000), where he created the Research Department. He has served as Minister of Planning of Venezuela (1992–93) and as a member of the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela. He also served as Chair of the IMF- World Bank Development Committee. He was Professor of Economics at the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion (IESA) (1985–91) in Caracas, where he founded the Center for Public Policy. He holds a PhD in Economics from Cornell University. Professor Hausmann’s research interests include issues of growth, macroeconomic stability, international finance and the social dimensions of development. He did pioneering work on the causes of macroeconomic volatility in developing countries and stud- ied its effects on growth, poverty and inequality. He also studied the role of budgetary and political institutions in achieving fiscal balance and the role of foreign currency debts in causing economic crises. Professor Hausmann has made important contributions to the study of the “resource curse”. More recently, his growth diagnostics methodology, designed to identify the binding constraints to growth in countries, has been adopted widely by multilateral organiza- tions, and his breakthrough research on the patterns of change in productive structures is informing countries’ industrial policies around the world. Professor Hausmann developed the methodology of the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index, which looks into areas of health, education, economic participation and political power; he is also the co-author of the annual Global Gender Gap Report.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
And you can contact him here
http://www.ricardohausmann.com/index.php
Please don't spam the guy, I don't want to be responsible for posting a link that lead to that.
His "publications" list has links to 100 things worth a look from Robert Franklin.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 am
Before there's rhetoric against liberals, be sure to notice that hausman is characterized as "a well-known opponent of Hugo Chávez" and a neoliberal, in other words, for market and trade liberalization on behalf of corporations for their freedom to privatize everything, make war for oil, throw men in private jails for profit, etc. The opposite of political liberalism. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
The aims of the report are quite neatly summed up on page 4:
"Hence, the Index rewards countries that reach the point
where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it
neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are
outperforming men in particular variables."
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
@ Robert,
"Each category is scored on a 0 - 1 basis with '0' signifying total inequality and '1' signifying complete equality of the sexes in that category. Categories are then combined"
Even if the scoring method went from +1 to -1, the report would still be all but useless. Are we to assume that a '.75' on educational attainment is equivalent to a '.75' on health? Combining the categories certainly implies that.
Also, didn't slaves have pretty high 'economic participation and opportunity'? Surely what mattered then and still matters now is who gets to make the spending decisions.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Given Hausmann's background it's surprising he would develop such a biased methodology, not just in the scoring but in terms of what 'equality' means.
Since gender differences are functional and not jcosmetic, one needs be careful about what equality is, if it is possible, and if it is desirable.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
ok guys, this is what ive been suspecting since 1970, that equality is a smokescreen, that womens supremacy and the eradication of men, ala solanas, is what is truly the endgame, and this war of attrition against the male, comprises their agenda. separation of child from father disrupts the paternal influence throughout all society, insuring female-only control of childrens development, and female only control of societal evolution. how we get this back from the brink should be a major concern to anyone wishing for the survival of the species.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Lizardo Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Given Hausmann's background it's surprising he would develop such a biased methodology, not just in the scoring but in terms of what 'equality' means.
Can't say I was familiar with him before but feel free to add missing information. How is this surprising?
Neoliberal, advocating the development of poorer countries to "eradicate poverty" by privatizing everything... the trickle-down lie... "progress" for profits and corporate power.
Orderly workers are kept from forming unions or democratically organizing to limit the corporate takeover. "Equality" makes order... muddying and taking over the definition of "equality" lets the powers in charge do it before the people can.
Shifting limited, controlled benefits among sub-groups of people keeps them divided and makes a shell game with power. One group pulls ahead, another falls behind and hopefully they fight each other. Suddenly, progressive advocacy for women is a tool to block it for working class men. Feminism against patriarchy... instead of united workers against abusive owners.
This site has a very first world focus, which is just fine. The complaints here are not the same globally. There's a need for feminism in, say, saudi arabia. Look at this neoliberal guy- this is one of the real powers in charge- he's working on behalf of corporations, not feminism. It's not really about helping women or hurting men. Corporations believe in nothing... just profit... they don't care who or what is helping them get rich and they want you all to complain about feminism instead.