NZ 5th best for gender gap
The World Economic Forum has published its 2007 rankings for 128 countries on the size of their gender gaps and NZ is in 5th place, as in the 5th smallest gender gap. That’s pretty good. Note however this is not a measure of how well off women are generally in each country – it is a measure of how they do compared to men.
So while the US may be in 31st place, you’d probably rather be a woman there than in Lesotho which is 26th.
NZ was 7th in 2006, so a slight improvement. The only countries ahead of us are Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. We scored 76.5% and the top score was 81.5%
They provide breakdowns by income groups. The lowest ranking for a high income country is Saudia Arabia in 124th at 56.5%. Japan is low also in 91st place at 64.5%
The top middle income country is Latvia in 13th at 73.3% and bottom is Turkey at 57.7%.
For lower middle incomes, Philippines is top at 6th and 76.3% and bottom is Morocco in 122nd at 56.8%.
Finally the top low income country is Tanzania in 34th place scoring 69.7%. Bottom is Yemen in 128th with 45.1%.
Oh yes Borat’s Kazahstan actually does quite well at 32nd place and 69.8%.
The largest downwards movement was Nicaragua who dropped 20 places and is now 90th.
The methodology used is interesting. The overall score is an average of four group scores – for Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival Subindex and Political Empowerment.
NZ was 8th for economic participation, 19th for educational attainment, 67th for health and 9th for political empowerment. The top scores in each category by the way was Mozambique for economic participation, shared for educational attainment, shared for health and Sweden for political empowerment.
Looking further at the raw data, one soon realises that the educational and health scores have almost no effect because all the countries are so close together. The top
score in education is 100% and the median score is 98.9%. Going to health the top score is 98.0% and the median is 97.6%.
So in reality these rankings (unless you rank very very low) tell us little on health and education because the difference between top and median is slight.
In economic participation the top score is 79.7% and the median is 63.9%. So a reasonable range.
For political empowerment, the top score is 52.5% and median is 10.5%.
So in reality this gender gap ranking is primarily a ranking of political empowerment. We see this because four countries which top the political empowerment section also top the overall survey.
So what makes up the scores in the four groupings?
The economic participation group measures labour force participation, wage equality, income, and no of professionals and managers – all comparing female to male. This group has some effect on the overall ranking.
Education covers literacy rate, primary enrolments, secondary enrolments and tertiary enrolments. As I said, almost no difference between the top half.
Health covers life expectancy and sex ratio at birth. Again no real difference in the top half.
Political empowerment covers the ratio of female legislators, the ratio of female Ministers and the ratio of female to make heads of states for the last 50 years. I wonder if they counted the Queen or the GGs for us?
So mostly the rankings reflect how many female MPs and Ministers a country has. Now one of the good things of MMP has been the increase towards a more representative House.
So it’s a good result to be 5th, but it doesn’t mean women in NZ are massively different off to say women in the UK which is 11th.
Probably the best result is being 8th for economic participation which reflects the high labour participation arte for women.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Well I’m buggered if I know what the results are supposed to prove, having a lazy wife who sits around all day eating donuts and getting fat watching Oprah, while her over-worked, over-stressed hubby works all hours to support her in this lifestyle means that she’s disempowered does it?
November 9th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
DPF, this report means absolutely nothing. I already realised less than halffway through your post that NZ`s placement in the survey was about political empowerment because we have MMP. That.Is.It.
The fact that we have nore women in the workforce inprovesthe economic participation, but NZ has the highest gap in the OECD between the Maori well off and the not so well Maori well off.
What this means is that there is such a range of men who are not so well off and women are a bit worse off than them.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Christ this politically correct feminazi bullshit pisses me off. These brainwashed socialist bimbos should be home having children. Someone’s gotta damn well do it, and nature has delegated that task to the female of the species, so stop listening to that Marxist crap and get out and pro-create. The bottom line? Western countries are suffering badly from low birth rates, and the disadvantages of this far outweigh any perceived advantages of wimmin “participating” in the workforce.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Andrew and Redbaiter Right on!!! In our household everyone inculding the animals outranks me. If I dared to suugest my lovely wife wasnt numero uno I would cop a swift clip around the ears.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
On the bright side, at least we are going up in an international survey when we are slipping down the wealth and competitiveness ladders
November 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
This article is very light on facts. 12 HIV-infected children have been born in New Zealand to women whose HIV status was unknown during pregnancy. This is tragedy. However, it would be interesting to know if even one of these babies were born to a New Zealand born woman married to a New Zealander or man from a western country such as Australia, Canada, UK or US.
I think this is unlikely. These tragedies are the result of the Labour Party’s policy of stopping screening migrants. This change of policy is likely the result of lobbying by homosexual right’s lobbyist many in the Rainbow Branch of the Labour Party.
I would interested if other blog members agree that it be far more effective to screen all migrants for HIV and deny entry found to be HIV+ than screening all married women.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4266509a10.html
A pilot programme for HIV screening has been credited with saving two babies, and extending their mothers’ life expectancy by decades.
Nine health boards have signed up to offer HIV testing of pregnant women after a pilot study in the Waikato. Its results are published in the New Zealand Medical Journal today.
Experts say high priority must be given to introducing antenatal screening.
“For those women who are diagnosed before they get sick, not only are we saving the lives of their children but we are also detecting it early enough to help the women themselves,” said Graham Mills, an infectious diseases consultant with Waikato District Health Board.
Antenatal HIV screening is voluntary in New Zealand. A study of the Waikato programme found less than 10 per cent of healthcare providers offering tests.
The pilot made HIV screening one of six tests carried out on pregnant mothers, including for syphilis, hepatitis B and rubella.
A national programme would cost about $2 million. The test costs $9, and the direct medical cost of caring for an HIV infected child is put at $250,000.
Jane Morgan, a Waikato sexual health specialist, said about 9000 pregnant women were screened for HIV during the year-long pilot.
The virus was found in two, one in her teens, the other in her 20s. Both were infected through sex, one in New Zealand and one overseas.
Early detection enabled early treatment, and doctors were certain neither baby contracted HIV.
Studies show that by discovering the virus before labour, the risk of transmission is reduced from 30 per cent to less than 2 per cent. Early treatment also adds about 38 years to the life expectancy of the mother.
It was unlikely either woman would have had a voluntary test if it had been offered, as neither was deemed to be high-risk, Dr Mills said.
Karen Mitchell, group manager at the National Screening Unit, said nine district health boards would offer antenatal HIV screening by next June. Some – including Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, Northland and Taranaki – hope to offer it early next year. Capital and Coast District Health Board did not return calls.
Since 1999, 12 HIV-infected children have been born in New Zealand to women whose HIV status was unknown during pregnancy. Transmission occurs during labour and breast-feeding.
About 1200 New Zealanders live with HIV, and between 160 and 180 are diagnosed each year. A quarter are women.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
So how do you think the tories in NZ score for the political empowerment of women DPF? hmmmm, let me think. How many of the 10 top ranked National MPs are women in National? Now ask the same question for the Greens and Labour.
[DPF: Only two of the top ten Ministers are women. Two of the top ten National MPs are women. The Greens do not have ten MPs.]
November 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“Western countries are suffering badly from low birth rates, and the disadvantages of this far outweigh any perceived advantages of wimmin “participating” in the workforce.”
Redbaiter – the more educated women are, the less likely they are to have children. Are you saying that women being educated is a bad thing?
oh, and BTW isn’t it funny that the left’s WFF package is making having children more economically viable, so this is going to encourage more women to have more children. You should be singing Labour’s praises baiter!
November 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“Redbaiter ”
Fuck off moron. Use your own damn blog.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“Fuck off moron. Use your own damn blog.”
So no singing Labour’s praises Baiter? But why? I thought we had a chronic under-population problem? Isn’t Labour’s policies helping with that? Didn’t the high rate of child poverty under National in the 1990s discourage women from having children? That’s right Batier – repeat after me. “It’s a better way with Labour….”
November 9th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Christ – will we never be free from the wailing ninies. Women and maori are becoming ssimilar in that their life seems to centre around constantly moaning about something.
Their lives must be like living in the sewer. When will they find something positive to get their minds into. If theres one thing that come out of the last 20 years its to prove that women are even more dishonest in leadership roles than any group of men ever were.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“[DPF: Only two of the top ten Ministers are women. Two of the top ten National MPs are women. The Greens do not have ten MPs.]“
Ok – wrong measurement. How about we look at it this way?
6 of Labour’s top 20 MPs are women – the number is 4 for National. 8 of the Green’s 20 top list candidates are women. How are the left and right stacking up for the political empowerment of women now?
[DPF: Of course with quotas one ends up with more of that quota. Whether or not that means quotas are a good thing is quite different]
November 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Oh – and GD – you deserve a clip around the ears for even thinking like that.
Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and around our house Im Numero Uno when it comes to mowing the lawns, fixing the house, fixing the car, getting meals. She is Numero Uno when it comes to earning the cash, social contacts, send xmas cards, and so on. If you cant be better together than apart then you may as well stay apart.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
It’s a better way with “Labour”.
Does that mean that women who have experienced childbirth are superior to those who have not?
November 9th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
gd said “Andrew and Redbaiter Right on!!! In our household everyone inculding the animals outranks me. If I dared to suugest my lovely wife wasnt numero uno I would cop a swift clip around the ears.”
Same goes in my household gd! I wear the pants – it’s just that the missus tells me which ones!
November 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The craziest thing about this report is that it shows a gender gap for Health of 97.4%.
This would lead any casual observer to believe that men have better health outcomes in NZ than women.
The score is calculated by looking at life expectancy and sex ratio at birth. We know that women can expect to live about 4 years longer than men. This should put them well over 100% to start with!
As for sex ratio at birth, there is a small difference in favour of men (about 1200 out of 60,000 total for both sexes), but the purpose of including the ratio is ‘to capture the phenomenon of “missing women” prevalent in many countries with strong son preference.’
What on earth can be accounting for the missing 2.6%?
November 9th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
So how come the WEF rankings don’t measure the proportion of women CEO’s? or board members of listed companies? or women professors? or women vs men in prison? what about share ownership? asset ownership? home ownership?
November 9th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
thanks barry I have given myself a clip And to you and I2 after 33 years of marriage I wouldnt have it anyother way. After spending the day job having make decisions its great to go home and not have to do the same.
As to wimmin and babies the sad reality is that the best and brightest are either not reproducing or only having 1 whilst the wrong ones are popping them out wholesale .And dont start the usual bahbahbah.
For we babyboomers this has to be a real worry We are going to need all the taxpayers we can get to fund our super medicare etc etc as we strive to live to a ripe old age.
And we are going to be a powewful voting bloc. Give us what we want or forget about being the Gumint
November 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
National gave NZ our first woman Prime Minister. What more do they have to prove?
The Top20 from Labour and the National actually have a decent shot at getting into parliament. Not so for the Top20 Greens. As such selection on the list could be meaningless.
Would you accept the reverse proposition? If the data on Labour and National was reversed (lets say National had 6 females in the top20, Labour had 4) would you accept that National was doing more for female political empowerment then Labour?
Of course you wouldnt, you would try to find some other stat to back up your preconceived ideal.
OOOOOOOH! How about this. How many children do the Top20 Labour listers have compared to the Top20 National listers?
Whoever wins this stat can then claim to have a better track record at politically empowering parents! Even better, they would be the party that supported reproduction of the species!
I can see the billboard now! One side National blue, the other side Labour red. National side says “Reproducers”, Labours side says “Fuckers”!
Someone photoshop that for me!
November 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
redbaiter you are a backwards wee fucker aren’t you?
Aren’t you worried that all the socialists are dumb and uneducated, and therefore more likely to be at home, barefoot & pregnant?
Shouldn’t you be castigating all those right-wing businesswomen for violating your natural order?
“get out and procreate” you can’t even put your thoughts down intelligently you idiot – shouldn’t they be staying in to procreate?
Mebbe you should stay in with your banjo.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Hey Kimble – I like your thought patterns!
November 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
FighterPilott, no the socialists are not dumb there are as cunning as shithouse rats. It’s the stupid that are to thick to see they are been bribed with their own money, ie WFF. These idiots line up to tick the box then put their hands out. So don’t flatter yourself it’s not your policies that people fall for it’s your fucking bribes moron.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Fighter of Pillows and Pilot t of rubber band propelled socialist lickspittle Helen Fart special designed froth bubbles , are you aware that joe average kiwi despises the Labour Government ? They are pathetic liars .
November 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Roger, you forgot to castigate DPF for bandying about the misconception Borat is Kazakhstani when it’s allegedly Ali G impersonating one while at the same time denigrating the proud socialist Republic of Kazakhstan. Disgraceful, bloody disgraceful.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I heard through the bush telegraph that New Zealand has the highest density population statistics of radical feminists in the South Pacific region ? Instantly the word feminazi does comes to mind , oh well , nice PM, nice mad speaker, nice dame this and that , hello children’s commissioner , nice evening to all.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
SSB – I didn’t even come close to saying anything about Labour’s policies or why people vote for them.
Learn to read you fucking muppet.
After you’ve done that, maybe take a bit of interest in humanity – not everyone is as stupid as you or your buddy Dumbfuck 4 Doing Fuck All About Justice, so the reasons behind their voting choices are probably a bit more complex that the two of you would be able to comprehend.