3 ms·

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not sure I can defend against that position. Perhaps women in japan and korea are extremely oppressed. This is certainly not what I thought after reading for example or just seeing what's portrayed in the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea Meanwhile your source has Rwanda as #6 most equal. I'm very confused about what the data is saying. It's certainly feeling more like a checkbox list. So let's look at Canada. Both my data and your data have them with poor performance. Mind you my data is just looking at wage gap. Women in Canada for ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION AND OPPORTUNITY is 27th place behind Brunai and Ghana. This seems quite incorrect. Women have completely the same economic opportunity as men in Canada. So this is a debateable number. Women are educated BETTER than men and certainly work. So I'm not sure how this data was determined. The actual number should be showing discrimination against me. Women in Canada are 1.0 for education. That's good. Like I just said https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-004-x/2008001/article/10561-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-004-x/2008001/article... Women outnumber men. So this is actually false information. They capped the number wrongly at 1.0. Women in Canada for HEALTH AND SURVIVAL aren't in the list? USA is in 71st place. I happen to know this statistic. Women live longer than men. So they cherry picked and removed this data? https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2011001/article/11427-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-624-x/2011001/article... This another number completely false. Women in Canada for POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT are 21st place behind india and nambia. Except we live in a democratic society with no barriers. Women can run for politics. So this should be a 1.0. So I guess in conclusion I find your study to be biased, false, and wrong. Let me explain to you what's happening. Women have the CHOICE. They choose careers that they get paid less in. This is a good thing. They have the freedom. The gap is not a problem.

lazyasciiart 8y ago
Japan is very well known for gender inequality in the workplace and Rwanda is also well known as an example of significant legal and social support for gender equality. If your intuition and awareness doesn't include either of these facts then you should not trust yourself on this area at all.
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  I'm not going to defend Japan. As I said I'm happy to believe they treat women worse than Saudi Arabia; which is what my source provided. As for Rwanda, this is just plain absurd. This is at best a checkbox study where they are looking to confirm reverse sexism. Yes I did read Rwanda has significant reverse sexism. After the genocide their society was over 70% women and they elected leaders to provide sexist policies. Reverse sexism is not an ideal to be aiming toward.
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    You are defining equality of participation as evidence of reverse sexism and you appear happy to believe whatever random things cross your screen that don't disagree with your core beliefs. I hope someone else has the patience to talk to you more.
rhcom2 8y ago
You just ignored the study's definitions for all the terms and then claimed them false by supplying your own which is pretty classic confirmation bias. Just for "political empowerment" for example, the study did not define political empowerment as "can run for politics."
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  Lets say Canada passes legislation saying >50% of MPs must be women. That would be an extreme abuse of democracy. If only 50% of ridings have a woman running. It would mean those riding automatically go to those women. Those ridings don't get to vote. So yes, political empowerment only goes so in far as women having the right to run. Not confirmation bias; I simply believe in democracy. I also note you never commented on the other points which were much more egregious and clearly make things appear much worse than it actually is. I also go back and recalculate Canada's score. We are the MOST equal country surpassing Iceland and Rwanda by gigantic strides it also makes the study look pretty stupid because our equality is perfect and yet we have a large wage gap still. This is because the gender wage gap isn't discrimination. It's entirely based on decisions made by women.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    I'm trying to tell you that for each of your criticisms of the study you ignored their definitions and evidence and applied your own based on your feelings. For another example, 'Health and Survival' was not based on if women lived longer than men but "an estimate of the number of years that women and men can expect to live in good health by taking into account the years lost to violence, disease, malnutrition and other relevant factor." This was defined in the paper but you either chose to ignore it or didn't bother to read how they defined it.
joshuamorton 8y ago
De jure and de facto equality are different things. Do you honestly believe that African Americans faced no discrimination after July, 3 1964? Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0. I guess you could say they just didn't choose to run for office. Or to get educated. The cross burning was coincidental.
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women. But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening. What's the fix? THERE IS NO FIX. It's exactly how it should be. We absolutely should not say 50% of MPs must be women. That is not how democracy works. >Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0. Yes that is a 1.0. Was there discrimination? I'm sure there is still today. However there is no fix. That is a 1.0. We are equal. We dont need to have a rule saying 50% of the elected positions must be black people. That would be discrimination and wrong.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    >So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women. But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening. Its very easy to think up improbable, and even impossible, hypothetical situations. This is one such hypothetical and it adds no value to this discussion. We live in a world with discrimination. What you're suggesting is as fantastical as imagining a country where everyone can fly and then asking what we would do for the car companies. It assumes so many unrealistic things that its not a good faith attempt at conversation. Or another way of putting this is: I claim that your situation will occur with only some miniscule probability such that it is indistinguishable from impossible in practice. You're welcome to prove me wrong. But to be clear, I ask for a proof, and the burden is on you, to show that in a society truly free of discrimination, both de jure and de facto, that things would be as you claim with any regularity. Put plainly, such a feat isn't possible. So your hypothetical isn't worth spending time pondering. >Was there discrimination? I'm sure there is still today. Then it's not a 1.0. The WEF report is measuring discrimination, which you just said still exists. By your own admission, this shouldn't be a 1.0.

lazyasciiart 8y ago

Japan is very well known for gender inequality in the workplace and Rwanda is also well known as an example of significant legal and social support for gender equality. If your intuition and awareness doesn't include either of these facts then you should not trust yourself on this area at all.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
I'm not going to defend Japan. As I said I'm happy to believe they treat women worse than Saudi Arabia; which is what my source provided. As for Rwanda, this is just plain absurd. This is at best a checkbox study where they are looking to confirm reverse sexism. Yes I did read Rwanda has significant reverse sexism. After the genocide their society was over 70% women and they elected leaders to provide sexist policies. Reverse sexism is not an ideal to be aiming toward.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  You are defining equality of participation as evidence of reverse sexism and you appear happy to believe whatever random things cross your screen that don't disagree with your core beliefs. I hope someone else has the patience to talk to you more.

rhcom2 8y ago

You just ignored the study's definitions for all the terms and then claimed them false by supplying your own which is pretty classic confirmation bias. Just for "political empowerment" for example, the study did not define political empowerment as "can run for politics."

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
Lets say Canada passes legislation saying >50% of MPs must be women. That would be an extreme abuse of democracy. If only 50% of ridings have a woman running. It would mean those riding automatically go to those women. Those ridings don't get to vote. So yes, political empowerment only goes so in far as women having the right to run. Not confirmation bias; I simply believe in democracy. I also note you never commented on the other points which were much more egregious and clearly make things appear much worse than it actually is. I also go back and recalculate Canada's score. We are the MOST equal country surpassing Iceland and Rwanda by gigantic strides it also makes the study look pretty stupid because our equality is perfect and yet we have a large wage gap still. This is because the gender wage gap isn't discrimination. It's entirely based on decisions made by women.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  I'm trying to tell you that for each of your criticisms of the study you ignored their definitions and evidence and applied your own based on your feelings. For another example, 'Health and Survival' was not based on if women lived longer than men but "an estimate of the number of years that women and men can expect to live in good health by taking into account the years lost to violence, disease, malnutrition and other relevant factor." This was defined in the paper but you either chose to ignore it or didn't bother to read how they defined it.

joshuamorton 8y ago

De jure and de facto equality are different things. Do you honestly believe that African Americans faced no discrimination after July, 3 1964? Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0. I guess you could say they just didn't choose to run for office. Or to get educated. The cross burning was coincidental.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women. But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening. What's the fix? THERE IS NO FIX. It's exactly how it should be. We absolutely should not say 50% of MPs must be women. That is not how democracy works. >Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0. Yes that is a 1.0. Was there discrimination? I'm sure there is still today. However there is no fix. That is a 1.0. We are equal. We dont need to have a rule saying 50% of the elected positions must be black people. That would be discrimination and wrong.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  >So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women. But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening. Its very easy to think up improbable, and even impossible, hypothetical situations. This is one such hypothetical and it adds no value to this discussion. We live in a world with discrimination. What you're suggesting is as fantastical as imagining a country where everyone can fly and then asking what we would do for the car companies. It assumes so many unrealistic things that its not a good faith attempt at conversation. Or another way of putting this is: I claim that your situation will occur with only some miniscule probability such that it is indistinguishable from impossible in practice. You're welcome to prove me wrong. But to be clear, I ask for a proof, and the burden is on you, to show that in a society truly free of discrimination, both de jure and de facto, that things would be as you claim with any regularity. Put plainly, such a feat isn't possible. So your hypothetical isn't worth spending time pondering. >Was there discrimination? I'm sure there is still today. Then it's not a 1.0. The WEF report is measuring discrimination, which you just said still exists. By your own admission, this shouldn't be a 1.0.