I have no words - "American women outlive their male counterparts by just about three years, which hurt its [Gender Gap] ranking"

DavidByron2 · 2014-10-28T04:44:45+00:00

It's a ridiculous statistic used to fake up victimry.

Rwanda and Nicaragua both have less than $9 billion in GDP, but both rank among the top 10 countries in the world when it comes to gender equality.

Rwanda scores high on the artificial measure of "representation" which is a complete nonsense statistic but that's all feminists have of course. Because most of it's men were eliminated a few years back Rwanda is unique in the world having a majority of female legislators. The perfect country for feminists is the one where most men have been disappeared.

Note: having fewer than half male representatives is not a deficit in the "gender gap". So it's more correctly a female supremacy index.

While women outlive men by an average of about six years in OECD countries, American women outlive their male counterparts by just about three years, which hurt its ranking, said Zahidi.

That's right folks the more equal result scores LESS than the more female supremacist results.

So what's this fictitious 100% score about if it has nothing to do with equality? Well to score a 100% on life expectancy you have to have your women living about seven years longer than men. That's their "equality" bench mark.

All the issues are fake. On economic equality they don't measure who SPENDS the money but who has to work hard to earn it.

I don't know how they fiddle the books on education.

In all four areas women are ahead of men in the USA, but that's not enough to give the USA a high score, let alone for it to rate 100%. makes you wonder how great women in all those other countries have it, doesn't it?

In fact one of the ironies of the feminist fraud here is that generally women score HIGHER for so-called economic equality in third world countries because in those countries the women are forced to work as hard as the men are because those countries are just not rich enough to allow many women to be largely supported by the work of the husband. So in reality the wage gap is a measure of female privilege and power If you are having all or much of your economic security provided for you (privilege) then you don't need to work hard, and that means you earn less. (This also explains why in the USA black women earn more than white women if you equalize for educational level).

ETA:

Someone objected to me saying 80% of Rwandan men were killed. I changed this to say most of Rwandan men were eliminated since I can find sources to prove that, but I do believe the situation was worse than that. Still that's quite bad enough to make my point.

sean_robinson132 · 2014-10-28T09:58:00+00:00

Robert Franklin did an excellent couple of articles on this. This is a secondhand repost of one.

If women did better than men in any area, they got a score of 1. Nothing scored over 1. But if women did worse, they lost points. Only women lost points.

So when men die earlier - work harder - have worse health - drop out of school more - get sent to war and prison - go homeless ... the score is 1. Equality.

But if women have it worse in any way... uh oh! Inequality!

In this way, there can never be any place in the world with actual equality. (That's literally how the "gap" has been measured every year.) It makes men always wrong and bad.

Bigotry, this is what it looks like.

eletheros · 2014-10-28T05:39:07+00:00

"Gender Gap" index is a mislabeled "Woman's Superiority Index". Situations to women's benefit are neutral to the score, and cases such as men receiving almost equitable healthcare as women are viewed as a negative.

The best (1) score on the index would only be given out to the true feminist dream country, with all men dead or enslaved, granted no rights since any rights may cost a woman some small thing.

kkjdroid · 2014-10-28T07:01:55+00:00

At first I thought this must be bullshit, so I read the 300 page pile of wank for myself. Nope. It's real. They're actually rewarding gender disparity in almost every category considered as long as it's in the "right" direction.

So who comes out on top of their "gender equity" ranking for life expectancy? SYRIA, apparently the feminist utopia wonderland where because of a recent horrific war, men live to the wise old age of 55, but women (who as Ms. Clinton rightly taught us are the REAL victims of war) live to 65.

Every category is like this. Number one for literacy rate? Lesotho. Number one for labor force participation? Malawi. Number one for primary education "equality"? Guyana. Number one for women in parliament? Rawanda.

Wow! Those sure are all the countries I think of when it comes to advanced civilization and progressive values!

Someone should really send an email to one of the lead authors asking them if they can even attempt to justify this kind of insanely anti-male biased shit. Edit: better still, why not tweet their spokesperson for the "study".

humankin · 2014-10-28T05:53:48+00:00

The way they calculate gender equality, if women are better off than men in some metric and worse off in another then only the worse off detracts. If men are worse off in every way then the result is perfect equality.

There's a really fucking obvious ideological basis to gender equality metrics.

LostontheAverage · 2014-10-28T10:30:32+00:00

Wiki world economic forum and then go down to criticisms. The company sounds like a farce

kkjdroid · 2014-10-28T06:58:35+00:00

Yes, this is a feminist index measuring women's well being, not the gender gap. Lying about its nature is, of course, typical to feminists, too.

Take a look at the map of health "gap" in different countries. Outside certain developing countries the health gap is measured by healthy life expectancy (because the difference between how many girls and boys are born is about the same). In Russia the gap is one of the biggest, well over ten years, and in Sweden it's among the smallest, around four years. So, according to the World Economic Forum and its feminists, in Russia equality is perfect while in Sweden it's the worst outside developing countries.

So, making sure that Swedish men died younger would make Sweden more equal!

And then feminists wonder why people don't believe that they are for equality.

redpillbanana · 2014-10-28T10:36:11+00:00

This sort of female-centric thinking has become so commonplace that these authors don't think twice before writing stuff that should be triggering outrage.

This is the sort of thinking that leads to headlines like "50 people killed including 5 women" and "Women are smarter than men".

jonnyhan · 2014-10-28T14:50:08+00:00

So World Economic Forum idea of assessing women's health of a nation is by comparing life expectancy of women to men. We have been reduced to rodents that need extermination, haven't we? If a male specific epidemic hits this country resulting in millions of male deaths and lowering of average life expectancy of males, that would mean the ultimate victory of mainstream feminism and agencies like WEF.

Da_Judge · 2014-10-28T15:34:09+00:00

Playing devils advocate here but is the larger life expectancy of woman biological or societal.

2014-10-28T20:22:10+00:00

This is absolutely Fu***** outrageous. Propaganda and stuff like this makes me dislike feminists more than ever. There is a war going on with feminists.

Comments