Daily Mail, UK -A method that assesses the forms of hardship and discrimination facing men and women has revealed males have it harder in 91 countries out of 134.
Women were disadvantaged in only 43.
A study looked at 6.8 billion people around the world and scientists developed a new way of measuring gender inequality.
The UK, the US and Australia all discriminate against men more whereas Italy, Israel and China are harder environments for women, according to the study.
Researchers say this is due to men receiving harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more occupational deaths than women.
The study was carried out by the University of Essex and the University of Missouri-Columbia and published in the journal Plos One.
The index is based on three factors: educational opportunities, healthy life expectancy and overall life satisfaction.
Professor Gijsbert Stoet, from the Department of Psychology at Essex, explained: 'We're not saying that women in highly developed countries are not experiencing disadvantages in some aspects of their lives.
'What we are saying is that an ideal measure of gender equality is not biased to the disadvantages of either gender.
'Doing so, we find a different picture to the one commonly presented in the media.'
2 comments:
I would like to see a more detailed account of the data. This article says that the study is based on 3 factors; "educational opportunities, healthy life expectancy and overall life satisfaction" which seems odd. How is "educational opportunity" measured compared to what would be a clearer metric; "educational achievement".
"Life expectancy" how can this statistic take into account biology? It is widely understood that the immune system of the female, during reproductive years is more efficient than the male, infant mortality is greater in males, hereditary diseases manifest more in males, women tend to outnumber men but this is a function of biology, not societal equality (unless the study only account for "unnatural deaths".
"Overall life satisfaction" how was the data collected for this obviously subjective category? This article has no links to data pools or criteria for scoring. It does have an insert showing 8 out of 10 firms pay men higher wages then women in the UK but then lists the UK as #24 in over-all equality, specifying that women are BETTER OFF.
If you then look at the "ranking"... this study lists Saudi Arabia as the 3rd most equal country with WOMEN as slightly better off than men. A country where women are not allowed to go out in public without a male relative escort. A country where women only recently were granted the right to drive a car. A country where women cannot travel without their male-guardian permission, cannot sell property without 6 males testifying in court to verify her identity and rights to the property...
This looks like a lot of junk "science" to me, further evidenced by the publication that brought it to the public (at least it wasn't the National Enquirer or the Star) and with out further details of methodology and links to raw data seems hard to take seriously. Rather odd selection to see here at the Progressive Review.
And 2 of the 3 factors they claim account for the difference--military service and dangerous jobs--are both areas men have fought like hell to keep for themselves. The military is still a boys club, with dual standards.
Post a Comment