roryridleyduff 6 months ago

Dear readers,

This is a flawed report because it only looks at 'equality' from one perspective (the woman's perspective). As the authors themselves state, when women surpass men in equality indicators, they set the equality ratio to 1.0 (i.e indicating parity). In other words, the study designs out any evidence of male disadvantage in the way it presents the results. Given the hundreds, if not thousands, of studies now showing men are disadvantaged in life-expectancy, education etc. (i.e. variables that are reported in this study), this report suppresses evidence of the size of the 'gender gap' whenever it is men who are suffering a disadvantage. It shows the size of the gap whenever it is women who have the disadvantage. While it is useful to know where there are outcome gaps, any author of integrity would show where we need to tackle both female and male disadvantage to produce genuine equality.

By all means use this report (I certainly will - both for the quality of the data, but also to illustrate paradigmitic bias in research design). Fortuntately, the data suppressed in the summary tables is presented on a country by country basis later in the report. It is, therefore, possible to reconstruct the tables to show gender gaps in a more neutral and meaningful way. At the same time, take this report for what it is - a report designed highlight women's disadvantages while obscuring men's. As such, keep in mind the patriarchal world view that distorts the presentation of the data. You can present the data in a more balanced way by adopting a combined patriarchal/matriarchal world view.

Best wishes
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff
Senior Lecturer
Sheffield Hallam University