The US drops 8 spaces to 31st, of course.ÂÂ
Women in predominantly Muslim countries are struggling to compete for jobs, win equal pay and hold political office, falling behind the rest of the world in eliminating discrimination, a report said Thursday.
Nordic nations, by contrast, received the best overall grades for gender parity in education, employment, health and politics, according to the review of 128 countries compiled by the World Economic Forum.
******
Zahidi said religious and cultural reasons are important in understanding why men have economic, political, education and health advantages over women in much of the world.
Ex-Soviet nations with a Muslim majority, such as Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan, were in the middle of the field, but nearly all countries in the Middle East place in the bottom third. Pakistan, Chad and Yemen were at the bottom.
Women living on the Arabian peninsula receive nearly as much education and health benefits as men there, Zahidi said, “but they’re held back on political participation and economic empowerment.”
The annual study does not take into account a country’s overall level of economic development: women in Sri Lanka, South Africa, Cuba and Lesotho all fared betterâ€â€relatively speakingâ€â€than women in industrialized nations such as Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which fell eight places from last year’s study to 31st.
The U.S. scored lower because the percentage of female legislators, senior officials and managers fell in 2007, and the pay gap between women and men widened, the report said.
The world’s most populous nationsâ€â€China and Indiaâ€â€were hurt in the study by the preference of many parents for boys, which has led to abortions and infanticide being directed primarily against girls.
Link for Karl: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2007.pdf (p.15)
What’s a nice girl like you doing on a web like this?
Some argue it’s plain old-fashioned misogyny, especially since studies have shown that the political Internet is largely male. “The idea of a woman being president really rankles some people, and there’s nothing she can do right in the wake of that,” said Jane Hamsher of the liberal blog Firedoglake, one of the most prominent female bloggers.
31st? Is that it? Who put this together, some chick?
I’m sure that Cuban women will be relieved to hear that they may now stop climbing onto unseaworthy rafts in attempts to make it to Florida – they already have better economic opportunities than those poor women in the U.S.! The Cuban authorities should be alerted to expect a reverse migration; Miami will be practically empty!
Or, they’re equally fucked. You make the call.
Sri Lanka and Lesotho should brace themselves for massive illegal immigration from the United States.
After everything Hamster has done, especially Lieberman in blackface, how can the MSM continue to turn to her ?
Anyone care to really compare the plight of women in the US as compared to Lesotho?
Yeah, but they’re equally empoverished, diseased and repressed, h8r!
Someone needs to cock-slap Hamsher. It’s not the thought of a woman president that rankles, it’s the thought of THAT woman as President that is absolutely revolting.
“the liberal blog Firedoglake, one of the most prominent female bloggers.”
I had no idea Firedoglake was, itself, female.
P.S.: Can we please point to someone who is “rankled” on the woman-as-President point?
Otherwise, I’m going to be forced to call the Wicked Witch to BURN that particular straw man.
I am not rankled, but I am a little bit scared of the cankles.
They’re probably hanging out with those “one in four republican women” that would vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. man, I love having my intelligence insulted!
I tried to read Jane once, but as was pointed out earlier, I quickly tire of having my intelligence insulted.
I’d like to offer a theory.
Female politicians are less well represented in the United States because “chick politics” to rob Jonah Goldberg, is less popular here, meaning male voters in all but the bluest states dislike the idea of voting for someone who sounds like she’s auditioning for the new guest spot on the View. Meanwhile, Republican women don’t seem to be very interested in seeking public office as a means of political involvement.
This is an utterly lame theory, but it may have something to it. Assail at will.
Techie – Isn’t that a general overall problem for the Dems? For the last eight years, they have called anybody that did not agree with them every name under the sun, yet somehow, when they want votes, they are going to reach out and play nice, and we are supposed to just conveniently block out the last 8 years?
BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY!!!1!!!
Don’t have time to read the study right now(if ever) but could anyone tell me, do they possibly give any thought as to WHY there aren’t as many women managers? it’s funny because the last issue of the Wilson Quarterly focused on “women in power” and it generated a LOT more letters than they usually print. everyone has their theories.
Maybe we ought to get some kind of female exchange program going with Cuba. You know, just as an experiment. To determine whether this study is worth the paper it’s written on or not. Take a thousand American women, preferably from Hollywood and the northeastern coast, and a thousand Cuban women, and let them live in the opposite country for a year. And then see how many of each group wants to return to status quo ante. Surely we can get a grant for something like that.
I’m rankled.
I meant on the woman-as-President non-issue, happy.
Not in general.
Jane Hamster is an idiot who runs a Stalinist blog. I’ll bet she even has a crematorium and gas chamber somewhere on her site. Did I mention the Hamster minions alter posts deemed politically incorrect and attribute them to the poster?
The funny thing about studies like this is, the US, even if it were the best place in the world by far for women to live in (I’m not saying it is, note), would still rank the same. Because it’s relative to men.
I’m waiting for a bumper-sticker to come out:
“If you’re not for Hillary, you’re a misogynist.”
Oh.
“The annual study does not take into account a country’s overall level of economic development: women in Sri Lanka, South Africa, Cuba and Lesotho all fared betterâ€â€relatively speakingâ€â€than women in industrialized nations such as Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which fell eight places from last year’s study to 31st.â€Â
Couldn’t one chose to interpret this to say, in effect, “keep women out of leadership and pay them less than men lest you become a hand-to-mouth cesspool like Sri Lanka, South Africa, Cuba or Lesotho?â€Â
Just sayin’
“The annual study does not take into account a country’s overall level of economic development: women in Sri Lanka, South Africa, Cuba and Lesotho all fared betterâ€â€relatively speakingâ€â€than women in industrialized nations such as Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which fell eight places from last year’s study to 31st.â€Â
Couldn’t one chose to interpret this to say, in effect, “keep women out of leadership and pay them less than men lest you become a hand-to-mouth cesspool like Sri Lanka, South Africa, Cuba or Lesotho?â€Â
Just sayin’
Wait. Hillary is a woman?
In the report for the U.S. profile they say that women did not get the right to vote in the U.S. until 1965 (p. 153). Contrast that with Uruguay: 1932.
It’s sad that a whole forest of little pdf trees had to die for this nonsense.
*After everything Hamster has done, especially Lieberman in blackface, how can the MSM continue to turn to her ?*
Imagine if Goldstein ended up working for, say Huckabee, and 2 weeks after his hire, Huckabee’s campaign learnes that Goldstein was the originator of the “Porn Cock of Lies” and his site references said cock on a number of occasions. huckabee, under pressure, lets Goldstein go.
Contrast the kid gloves Hamsher gets to what Jeff woudl get “Disgraced former republican blogger Jeff Goldstein says X”. It must be nice to have the media on your side- like a big fluffy blanket, right out of the dryer, keeping you warm and dry.
Such rumors persist, but I think we all know who wears teh pants in that family.
Of course Scandinavian* women fare better in these studies. Who wouldn’t be just a bit intimidated by a woman who is 6’2″, outweighs you by 50#, and wears a brass bustiere? And I speak from experience: One of these lovely lasses broke my leg once. We were dancing the polka. Long story.
Last I checked, “Nordic” derived from “Norse/Norsk” and referred to Norway. The more generic “Skandinavia” refers to all them icebergs north of Europe.
“The funny thing about studies like this is, the US, even if it were the best place in the world by far for women to live in (I’m not saying it is, note), would still rank the same. Because it’s relative to men.â€Â
Exactly. If the misery is such that there is no economy of which to speak, and therefore women don’t have careers (because there are no careers), and neither do men, ‘tis good, because it is equal.
If there is a country where men are so productive that women are permitted to lounge about and be fed ambrosia all day, it is Misogynystan.
It occurs to me that the whole Feminist project is founded upon the single notion that stating even the modest superiority of men, as a class, in doing any one productive thing should be unutterable. That, I gather, is the heresy of Feminism that has become part of the cultural background, such that stating so is treated as a personal insult to any woman present. Men, ever trying to get laid, play along.
“women in Sri Lanka, South Africa, Cuba and Lesotho all fared betterâ€â€relatively speakingâ€â€than women in industrialized nations such as Japan, Switzerland and the United States, which fell eight places from last year’s study to 31st.â€Â
Relative to what? Getting some third world disease?
As my late sainted Grandmother would say:
“What a bunch of Horseshit!”
Heh. My first post was before I read the article, based on my well honed instinct for such drivel. When you read this:
“The purpose of the rankings is to bring out where a country stands in terms of dividing the resources that are available between women and men,” said Saadia Zahidi, one of the report’s three co-authors.
You realise that this is just another bullshit socialist “study” from retards that thinks Governments exist to issue handouts rather than guarantee freedom.
It has all the leftist tropes: “equal representation” with no qualifiers about the freedom to do as one pleases and that maybe American women don’t “want” to be whatever it is the studies authors *think* they should be. Same with the mythical “wage gap” which usually is the result of personal choices and division of family labor and not crypto-misogyny in the culture.
God, stuff like this drives me batshit.
I do not hate Hillary because she has a vagina. I hat Hillary because she has a mouth. And US citizenship.
Were segregated blacks were doing better than Africans?
If you don’t like it, you can support the International Violence Against Women Act.
Joe Biden can suck my hairy balls, assuming his sisters don’t beat the tar out of him first.
Were segregated blacks were doing better than Africans?
Why is it than any discussion about any issue with a Leftard like andy ends up with them calling us racists or warmongerers?
“Why is it than any discussion about any issue with a Leftard like andy ends up with them calling us racists or warmongerers?”
Racists? I think you have persecution complex.
TROLL, TROLL LIKE THE WIND!!!!
Nope, just a good memory, andy. If you were not trying to steer this comment towards race, why bother bringing up segregated blacks and Africans?
If you have a fucking point, make it. Or STFU. Your dancing around, taunting, but never actually discussing an issue is tiresome. I know better than to engage you. I have better things to do with my time. I am going to go drop a deuce.
Dan, I’m baffled. Which is typical… this is just another item on that list.
Why only violence against women, andy? Is violence against men okay? How about black men? Gay men? What if they are Republicans or Godbags, do they still count as real womyn? All this nuance and nonpreferential discrimination is giving me a headache, imma go taunt some Baptists for awhile.
Karl – If you are baffled, the following phrases will help you make sense of it.
1) Becuz of the paTrIaRcHy !!!!one1
2) My vi-jay-jay hurts
3) All sex is rape
4) MISOGYNIST!!!!!!1one!
“Why only violence against women, andy?”
During islamofascism awareness week, I learned about how some muslims treat women really poorly. I forgot to ask why they cared so much about just women. Or just the ones those muslims mistreat.
“If you were not trying to steer this comment towards race, why bother bringing up segregated blacks and Africans?”
Because its another situation where we want to talk about equality, rather than “you have it better than some poor schmuck abroad.”
Just because its “about race” doesn’t make you a racist. Unless you have a persecution complex
You are an idiot. On your better days.
And to set a good example for actus, he’s not doing it here.
Of course, actus is impervious to good examples, but it’s the thought that counts.
“You are an idiot. On your better days.”
Wait, weren’t you the one telling me about anti-discrimination laws on religion being ok because of the constitution’s religion clauses? Do you know what those clauses say? Even, god forbid, for originalists?
“During islamofascism awareness week, I learned about how some muslims treat women really poorly.
Better late than never.
Karl, if you are baffled, I am a veritable whiffle ball.
Poor actus. He can’t see the patriarchy for the racism.
“Because its another situation where we want to talk about equality, rather than “you have it better than some poor schmuck abroad.â€Ââ€Â
Um, no. It was, in the first instance, about criticizing a study which holds that women in the United States are in more dire straits than women in countries that haven’t managed a steady supply of toilet paper.
In the second instance, it was criticism of the inevitable way that this “study†will keep coming back like a bad penny. Marcook will actually proffer the idea that women in the United States are thirty-whatever on the non-misogyny scale, and poor, gullible wymyn will believe it. Would Marcook move to Lesotho? Not until she a) came to believe in Hell, and b) discovered that it had frozen over.
Conclusion: there is some benefit to a society that allows men to achieve their productive potential.
Of course, the whole trope of “equality†as it is utilized in the study and by you has within it all of the baggage of feminism, and presumes the correctness – without empirical evidence, mind you – of the statement that “womyn can do anything men can do (and better).â€Â
The point is – a Nation can’t rank number one on this scale – or yours – without inhibiting men in certain fields, a measure which most people find contrary to notions of both equality before law and freedom.
Women in the United States constitute an electoral majority, and have the juice to create the feminist nightmare, but haven’t. I rather like to think that this is the result of the good sense of a large number of them.
Sweden is No. 1. What do they do that inhibits the rights of men?
This question is informational, not rhetorical.
Translation to English, please? I don’t speak Jackass, and Babelfish can’t seem to make sense of it, either.
Andrew – They are really close to Norway, and as the Norwegianists showed us, you can’t really be manly an be a Norwegianders. That has to rub off on the Swiss.
And, the plethora Swedish bikini and lingerie models really throws the pay scale for women way out of whack.
um, tax them very highly? baby them? I don’t know for certain. I do know I’ve got a distant relative living there that’s anxious to retire and move to the U.S. She writes insurance policy manuals or some such.
Specifically, I was baffled about this in the main post:
Oh, I thought you might enjoy taking apart their data and methodology, Karl.
“Sweden is No. 1. What do they do that inhibits the rights of men?
This question is informational, not rhetorical.”
I believe, if I recall correctly, that Sweeden has a very rigid quota system for its occupations. For example, a board of directors of a Sweedish company must consist of X% (I believe it is 40% or half) of women. Add to this that (again, recollecting here) about 1 in every 3 adult Sweedes is on some form of disability, leave, or unemployment, which would “equalize” 1/3 of the population from jump.
Also, I think when you are Sweeden, and you elect a representative or whatever, you are really just electing an administrator of social welfare, so yeah, women seem like the obvious candidates in a nanny-state. Less so in a Nation where the possibility of waging war is more substantial – you look for a “Commander in Chief.”
“It was, in the first instance, about criticizing a study which holds that women in the United States are in more dire straits than women in countries that haven’t managed a steady supply of toilet paper.”
The study doesn’t hold that at all. It says explicitly its about measuring gender gaps, not levels.
“Conclusion: there is some benefit to a society that allows men to achieve their productive potential.”
Page 12 had rankings by income groups. Overall it looked like the bottom income countries had a high gender gap, with the opposite for high income countries.
“Of course, the whole trope of “equality†as it is utilized in the study and by you has within it all of the baggage of feminism, and presumes the correctness – without empirical evidence, mind you – of the statement that “womyn can do anything men can do (and better).—
You’ve got some issues, yo.