{"id":3148,"date":"2019-12-05T20:12:15","date_gmt":"2019-12-05T20:12:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=3148"},"modified":"2021-07-30T16:53:05","modified_gmt":"2021-07-30T15:53:05","slug":"measuring-gender-equality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=3148","title":{"rendered":"Measuring Gender Equality"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Figure 1: Stoet & Geary\u2019s BIGI versus HDI<\/strong> (see text)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Here I compare\nand contrast three alternative measures of gender \u201cequality\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first is\nthe Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), Ref.[1], which was devised by, and is vigorously\npromoted by, the World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF represents global capital,\nit promotes Global Governance and runs the Davos conferences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second\nis the Gender Equality Index (GEI), Ref.[2], devised and promoted by the\nEuropean Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). EIGE is an EU organisation, though\nmembership involves only 18 of the EU\u2019s 28 States, plus the European Commission.\nThe UK is not a member of EIGE. The GEI is therefore also a product of\nsupranational globalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third is\nthe Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI), Ref.[3], which was devised by two academic\npsychologists, Gijsbert Stoet (University of Essex) and David Geary (University\nof Missouri) without the assistance of any specific funding. It is not promoted\nby any major organisation, only by individuals genuinely concerned about\nequality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GGGI combines\nmeasures of gender inequality in four areas, Economic Participation and Opportunity,\nEducational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. Some of\nthe key factors which contribute to GGGI are, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  • Participation\nrates in employment;<\/li>
  • Gender\npay gap;<\/li>
  • An\nadvancement gap which is said to be \u201ccaptured through two hard data\nstatistics (the ratio of women to men among legislators, senior officials and\nmanagers, and the ratio of women to men among technical and professional\nworkers)<\/em>\u201d;<\/li>
  • A\nmeasure of political empowerment which \u201cmeasures the gap between men and\nwomen at the highest level of political decision-making through the ratio of\nwomen to men in ministerial positions and the ratio of women to men in\nparliamentary positions<\/em>\u201d.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Do these\nissues align with the concerns of any particular political movement at all? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Note that\nthe last two bullets relate to only a tiny percentage of the population, of either\nsex, so it hardly seems appropriate to include them in a measure of gender\nequality applicable to the general population. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The worst\naspect of GGGI is that the methodology used redefines all male disadvantage as\nequality. The one thing I would conceded to the WEF is that they are completely\nopen about their bias. Here are some extracts from Ref.[1] which make this\nclear,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cthe\nIndex rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal\nthose for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are\noutperforming men<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cThus a\ncountry, which has higher enrolment for girls rather than boys in secondary\nschool, will score equal to a country where boys\u2019 and girls\u2019 enrolment is the\nsame<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cTo\ncapture gender equality, two possible scales were considered. One was a\nnegative-positive scale capturing the size and direction of the gender gap.\nThis scale penalizes either men\u2019s advantage over women or women\u2019s advantage\nover men and gives the highest points to absolute equality. The second choice\nwas a one-sided scale that measures how close women are to reaching parity with\nmen but does not reward or penalize countries for having a gender gap in the\nother direction. We find the one-sided scale more appropriate for our purposes,\nas it does not reward countries for having exceeded the parity benchmark<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In short,\nthey opted to be \u201cone-sided\u201d. And note how skewed is the thinking behind the phrasing\nof the last sentence. They are kind enough to concede that \u201cexceeding the\nparity benchmark<\/em>\u201d does not actually deserve a reward. I should think not\nsince \u201cexceeding the parity benchmark<\/em>\u201d is a euphemism for male disadvantage.\nBut under the smoke-screen of these words they legitimise air-brushing away male\ndisadvantages entirely. Male disadvantage in longevity around the globe is\nredefined as equality, as is boys\u2019 disadvantage in educational attainment in\nWestern and other developed countries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    GGGI is not\na measure of gender inequality; it is a measure of women\u2019s advancement. It deliberately\nconceals inequalities to the disadvantage of men or boys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Turning to\nthe second equality measure\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In their own words, EIGE take \u201can intersectional approach\u201d to their Gender Equality Index. (Note that application of GEI is confined to the EU).  GEI conceals male disadvantage in a different manner from GGGI, as made clear in the methodology document, Ref.[4]. It treats all gender inequalities, whether to the disadvantage of men or women, in the same manner. Like other measures it combines inequalities derived for a range of contributing aspects of life. Every inequality in any of the contributing factors, in whichever direction it occurs, causes an increase in the overall measure of inequality. In mathematical terms, it is the absolute magnitude of the gender gap which is used, whilst its sign is ignored (see section 2.2.1 of Ref.[4]). To quote Ref.[4], \u201cit is not possible to derive information about either women or men directly from the scores<\/em>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The GEI uses\n31 equality indicators. For the overall GEI to indicate 100% equality, every\nsingle one of these 31 indicators would need to indicate 100% equality\nindividually. In GEI there is no concept of \u201cequal but different\u201d. It\nrecognises only absolutely identical lives to be equal lives. I am not being\nflippant when I note that full equality on this measure is impossible whilst\nmen have no uterus. I wonder how EIGE would score their own work-life balance\nteam, which consisted of ten women and one man. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The GEI\u2019s\nostensible gender blindness is disingenuous, as I illustrate below. I am\nreminded of the Crown Prosecution Service\u2019s annual Violence Against Women and\nGirls (VAWG) reports, e.g., Ref.[5]. Here VAWG is defined as a category of\noffences whose victims may be women, girls, men or boys and so the reported\nstatistics include offences against all victims irrespective of sex. But,\npreposterously, these statistics are presented within a report entitled Violence\nAgainst Women and Girls<\/em> as if this is in no way misleading. Au contraire<\/em>,\nit is deliberately misleading. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The EU\u2019s GEI\nis also the tool of a certain political agenda. This is evident in this year\u2019s special\nfocus report on work-life balance, Ref.[6]. I hope the reader will indulge me\nas I outline what policy is truly being pursued in the six indicators presented\nunder the banner of a \u201cwork-life scoreboard\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Parental\nleave policies<\/strong>:\nThere is no need for me to present data on parental leave. Whatever your\nopinion on the matter, the current fact is that overwhelmingly more maternity\nleave is taken than paternity leave. Yet EIGE chooses to headline that more\nwomen than men are ineligible<\/em><\/strong> for parental leave. How come? Well,\nmore women are ineligible for parental leave simply because they are not\nworking. The policy that is actually being promoted is the desire to get more\nwomen into paid employment. But this objective is disguised by being presented,\nostensibly, as an equality issue – namely equal eligibility for parental leave.\nYou see how that works? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Informal\ncaring for children:<\/strong>\nThe statistic emphasised here is \u201cnot enrolled in childcare\u201d. Why is not <\/em><\/strong>having\nchildren cared for commercially, rather than by a parent, being promoted as an \u201cinequality\u201d?\nBecause the policy objective is, quote, \u201cto allow parents to stay in or join\nthe labour market and reduce the gender gap in employment<\/em>.\u201d The policy\nobjective is getting more women working more hours, not caring for children.\nBut by presenting it as an equality issue currently to women\u2019s disadvantage, a\nsympathetic audience is guaranteed \u2013 a reaction which a cry of \u201cget thee out of\nthe home and into a job, women!\u201d would not enjoy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Flexible\nworking arrangements<\/strong>:\nWhy does EIGE regard flexible working arrangements as important? Because \u201cthey\ncan support people with caring responsibilities to enter the labour market, as\nfull-time employees<\/em>\u201d. Different heading, same objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Lifelong\nlearning<\/strong>: Education\nfor its own sake? Education as a cultural pursuit which enriches one\u2019s life\nquite independent of material issues? Not a bit of it. Quote, \u201clifelong\nlearning can help women re-enter the labour market after career breaks due to\ncare responsibilities<\/em>\u201d. Are you getting the message?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Informal\nlong-term care of the elderly\/infirm<\/strong>: More women than men are such carers. The concern of EIGE is\nthat women are able to \u201cmaintain a healthy balance between their care duties\nand work life<\/em>\u201d. Once again it is the impact on the hours of paid work by\nwomen that is their concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Transport\nand public infrastructure<\/strong>: Surely this cannot be yet another \u201cget women into work\u201d issue \u2013 can it?\nThink again. The statistic they deploy is commuting time, implying that women\u2019s\nshorter average commute is indicative of how women\u2019s working hours are\nconstrained by caring duties. Quote, \u201caccess to affordable and quality\npublic infrastructure, such as\u2026.transportation, impacts women\u2019s and men\u2019s\nopportunities to balance paid work with other activities<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sorry to\nhave laboured the point, but it\u2019s an important point. The entirety of what is\nbeing presented to us as a touching concern over our \u201cwork-life balance\u201d is\nactually a cover for getting women working more paid hours. Why would they want\nto do this? Because women are contributing only 27% of income tax to men\u2019s 73%,\nof course. And, no, it\u2019s not because of a few percent pay rate gap, it\u2019s\nbecause men work over 50% more hours than women, and more men pay tax at the\nhigher rate. Governments are very keen to tap into an under-taxed resource,\nnamely women. Moreover, more working hours by women would push up GDP and GDP\nper capita, those indicators of economic health \u2013 and thereby potentially\nreduce the interest rates on our sovereign debt. You doubt it? Here is what Nicky\nMorgan, then Secretary of State for Education and one-time Minister for Women\nand Equalities had to say in 2015, Ref.[7],<\/p>\n\n\n\n

     \u201cEqualising women\u2019s productivity and\nemployment to the same level as men\u2019s could add almost \u00a3600 billion to our\neconomy, clearing a third of our national debt<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    (The figure cited only makes sense if accumulated over many years \u2013 total income tax revenue in 2018\/19 was only \u00a3191 billion. Nevertheless the quote serves to prove the point regarding Government\u2019s keenness to exploit women\u2019s earning potential).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Does this\nhelp explain why globalist organisations promote these so-called \u201cequality\u201d\nagendas? It isn\u2019t about equality, and it isn\u2019t about being nice to women\neither. And it most certainly isn\u2019t about work-life balance. Even more\nemphatically it isn\u2019t about anything beneficial for children (whose true\nwelfare isn\u2019t even paid lip-service in these narratives). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What is being presented to us as social change to improve work-life balance is directly contrary to what the UK public actually want. How do I know? Because the British Social Attitudes Surveys tell us so. Here are some extracts from the 2019 survey, Ref.[8],<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Question: \u201cWhat\nis your view on how paid leave following the birth of a child should be divided\nbetween the mother and the father?<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Of those who\nresponded, 60% opined that the mother should take all or most of the paid\nleave, whilst no one (to within rounding) thought that the father should take\nall or most of the paid leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Question: \u201cWhat\nis your view on the best way for a family with a child under school age to\norganise family and work life?<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Of those who\nanswered the question, 86% thought the father should work full time; 77%\nthought the father should work more hours than the mother, and, to within\nrounding, no one thought the father should be the stay-at-home parent, and no\none thought the father should work only part-time if the mother was working\nfull time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Note that\nthe above responses apply to both male and female respondents roughly equally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So it is\nclear why the globalist-feminist-establishment has to present their attempts at\nsocial engineering falsely in the guise of an equality issue: it is because it\nruns directly counter to what people actually want.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And that\nbrings me to BIGI, the only one of the equality measures which is untainted by\na political agenda. The motivation of the authors of Ref.[3] was, at least in\npart, a recognition of the shortcomings of GGGI. They write, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cBIGI\naims to provide a simplified and unbiased measure by focusing on key indicators\nthat are relevant to all men and women in any society. BIGI focuses on key\ningredients of a good life.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n