site banner
Londondare  I am new here  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   5923 thread views

How UN manipulates the Gender Development Index

I think that UN manipulating it's own index is not culture wars even if the index is related to gender. Let me know if I am wrong.

Human development

The Gender Development Index (GDI), along with its more famous sibling Human Development Index (HDI) is a an index published annually by UN's agency, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Whether an index is manipulated or not can be judged only against a precise definition of what the index claims to be measuring. So how do you measure human development? Whatever you do, you will never capture all nuances of the real world - you will have to simplify. The UNDP puts it this way:

The Human Development Index (HDI) was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone.

So the UNDP defines the Human Development Index as a geometric mean of three dimensions represented by four indices:

Dimension Index
Long and healthy life Life expectancy at birth (years)
Knowledge Expected years of schooling (years)
Mean years of schooling (years)
Decent standard of living Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (2017 PPP$)

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI

Gender Development

So far so good. Next, on it's website the Gender Development Index (GDI) is defined like this:

GDI measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health, measured by female and male life expectancy at birth; education, measured by female and male expected years of schooling for children and female and male mean years of schooling for adults ages 25 years and older; and command over economic resources, measured by female and male estimated earned income.

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/gender-development-index#/indicies/GDI

While in the actual report HDI it is simply defined as a ratio of female to male HDI values:

Definitions - Gender Development Index: Ratio of female to male HDI values.

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22pdf_1.pdf

Let's look, for instance, at the Gender Development Index of United Kingdom. The value 0.987 means that despite longer life and more education, in UK, females are less developed than males.

Dimension Index Female value Male value
Long and healthy life Life expectancy at birth (years) 82.2 78.7
Knowledge Expected years of schooling (years) 17.8 16.8
Mean years of schooling (years) 13.4 13.4
Decent standard of living Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (2017 PPP$) 37,374 53,265

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22pdf_1.pdf

Wait, what?? What does it mean that females in UK have command over economic resources of post Soviet Estonia (GNI Estonia=38,048) while males in UK have command over economic resources of EU leader Germany (GNI Germany=54,534)?

The manipulation

The UNDP calculates separate command over economic resources for females and males, as a product of the actual Gross National Income (GNI) and two indices: female and male shares of the economically active population (the non-adjusted employment gap) and the ratio of the female to male wage in all sectors (the non-adjusted wage gap).

The UNDP provides this simple example about Mauritania:

Gross National Income per capita of Mauritania (2017 PPP $) = 5,075

Indicator Female value Male value
Wage ratio (female/male) 0.8 0.8
Share of economically active population 0.307 0.693
Share of population 0.51016 0.48984
Gross national income per capita (2017 PPP $) 2,604 7,650

According to this index, males in Mauritania enjoy the command over economic resources of Viet Nam (GNI Viet Nam=7,867) while females in Mauritania suffer the command over economic resources of Haiti (GNI Haiti=2,847).

Let's be honest here: this is total bullshit. There are two reasons why you cannot use raw employment gap and raw wage gap for calculating the command over economic resources:

Argument 1

Bread winners share income with their families. This is a no brainer. All over the world, men are expected to fulfil their gender role as a bread winer. This does not mean that they keep the pay check for themselves while their wives and children starve to death. Imagine this scenario: a poor father from India travels to Qatar where he labours in deadly conditions, so that his family can live a slightly better life. According to UNDP, he just became more developed, while the standard of living his wife is exactly zero.

Argument 2

Governments redistribute wealth. This is a no brainer too. One's command over economic resources and standard of living is not equal to ones pay check. There are social programs, pensions, public infrastructure. Even if you have never earned a pay check yourself, you can take a public transport on a public road to the next public hospital. Judging by the Tax Freedom Day, states around the world redistribute 30% to 50% of all income. And while men pay most of the taxis (obviously, they have higher wages) women receive most of the subsidies (obviously, they have lover wages). But according the UNDP, women in India (female GNI 2,277) suffer in schools and hospitals of the war-torn Rwanda, while men in India (male GNI 10,633) enjoy the infrastructure and social security of the 5-times more prosperous Turkey.

Don't get me wrong, the employment gap and pay gap are not irrelevant for the standard of living and command over economic resources. Pensions and social security schemes mostly do not respect the shared family income and as a result the partner doing less paid work - usually a women - gets lower pension, unemployment benefit etc. What's worse, the non-working partner is severely disadvantaged in case of divorce or break up. But while this has an impact on each gender's standard of living it certainly does not define 100% of that value.

Argument 3

You may argue that the command over economic resources measured by estimated earned income is some kind of proxy for all other disadvantages women face in society. But do you remember what I said in the beginning?

Whether an index is manipulated or not can be judged only against a precise definition of what the index claims to be measuring.

The HDI measures "people and their capabilities" and the GDI is a ratio of these capabilities measured separately for men and women. The economic dimension of the GDI is supposed to be standard of living or command over economic resources - neither of which can be represented by earned income alone.

The taboo

Wikipedia says: "For most countries, the earned-income gap accounts for more than 90% of the gender penalty." (I have not verified this.) This is important, because when we look at the other two dimensions it becomes clear that while men have shorter and less health lives they also increasingly fall behind in mean and expected years of schooling. Without the misrepresentation of the command over economic resources value, the index would show something very uncomfortable: that according to UN's own definition of Human Development men are the less developed gender.


PS: Is there a way to give those tables some borders and padding?
31
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Imagine this scenario: a poor father from India travels to Qatar where he labours in deadly conditions, so that his family can live a slightly better life. According to UNDP, he just became more developed, while the standard of living his wife is exactly zero.

It is very nice of him to send money home to his wife and family. It is a good thing for women in his homeland if most men choose to do this.

But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment. If his wife displeases him, if he meets someone else there, if he runs into trouble and needs the money for himself, if he acquires a drug or gambling problem, or just if he feels like it.

Yes, he has complete and total command over those economic resources.

That he chooses to spend them on his wife is nice for her, but it doesn't change who commands them.

This is not a distinction without a difference. being dependent on someone else for your ability to survive is essentially and massively different from being self-sufficient. And when an entire class of people is in that dependent position, it changes how society conceives of and treats those people, how they conceive of and treat themselves.

This is very much the type of thing the index is meant to measure.

But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.

What happens when he comes home after he does this? Does his community welcome him back with open arms? I feel like, as always, there's a part of the picture here we're not considering.

But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.

So could anyone else. If a woman is employed, her employer could fire her. If she works in a store the government could zone the area and make it illegal to operate the store.

There's a difference between a not 100% certain source of income and no income. Counting the former as the latter is lying with figures.

But if I am a woman who depends on my husband for income, all those things could happen re my husband's job. So, aren't I doubly dependent, relative to a woman who earns her own income? Seems like a meaningful distinction to me.

Is it a meaningful enough distinction to send your daughter to live in Qatar?

As I understand it, the GDI is not neant to be used for that purpose. Per Wikipedia, "The GDI cannot be used independently from the HDI score, and so, it cannot be used on its own as an indicator of gender gaps. Only the gap between the HDI and the GDI can actually be accurately considered; the GDI on its own is not an independent measure of gender gaps."

Sure. Come up with some factor to take this account, justify it as best you can, and multiply by it.

However, this factor won't be zero.

What does it mean to earn your own income? If your customers are mostly men, are you earning your own income? After all, the men could choose to stop patronizing your business at any moment. That's not much different from the husband who could stop sending remittances at any moment.

Yes, that's why financial advisors always say that putting all of your money in one stock is exactly as safe as buying index funds.

They say that putting your money in one stock is risky, but they don't say that putting money into one stock is so risky that the stock counts as having zero income when making income comparisons.

I agree, being supported by your husband is somewhere in between as secure as 'having no money whatsoever' and 'earning your own money'.

But that's not a problem with the scale, it's just what the scale is actually measuring.

Every scale with a problem is measuring something. If the scale accidentally divided female lifespan by two, you could say "it still measures something, it measures whether female lifespan divided by two is less than male lifespan. It's just that that measure isn't very useful".

Ok.

That's not actually an argument against the thing the scale is measuring, which I've spent a bunch of comments discussing already.

I don't think anyone is confused into thinking that in the countries with a low index 100% of women starve to death because they have no income and thus no access to resources from any source.

Countries like that don't and haven't existed, so it would be a weird thing to put this much effort into measuring.

What has and does exist is countries where women are dependent on men for resources, and thus have less power and self-determination.

That's a thing that makes sense to measure since it varies a lot between cultures, and it sure seems to be what this index is measuring.

But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.

Yes he could, and it sometimes happen. But that is an edge case, not average. Married couples share their income more often than not. Why do you think marketers say that women make majority of the purchasing decisions? The idex measures averages, not worst case scenarios.

Yes, he has complete and total command over those economic resources.

Not true. You disregard both the social norms and the laws that govern the sharing of wealth in marriage. By default half of all wealth they own is hers.

This is very much the type of thing the index is meant to measure.

Do you have a source for that claim? Because the authors of the index are saying something different.

The idex measures averages, not worst case scenarios.

This reinforces @guesswho 's point. The index, or more precisely, the specific element of the index that we are discussing, is trying to measure economic control. The woman who relies on her husband indeed has less control, on average, than a woman who earns her own income. A woman who has a ten pct chance of having her income obliterated by a natural or an economic catastrophe and a 10 pct chance of it being devastated by her husband's death or abandonment is less secure than a woman who only is at risk from the former.

Consider two scenarios:

  1. A single woman working retail part-time making minimum wage (say, $10k/year)

  2. A wife working as an unpaid homemaker to a partner at a law firm making $1M/year.

Would you say the woman working retail has more command over economic resources than the homemaker? To me, she pretty clearly does not: earning a wage isn't the only way to have command over economic resources. Her intra-household negotiating power translates to external economic power.

A fairer comparison might be a single woman making $50k/year and a homemaking wife married to a man making $100k/year (both post tax, for simplicity). This is a much murkier comparison, and I'd say the single woman does have more command over economic resources (though it depends on culture and household dynamics). But that homemaker would still typically be much closer in command of resources to the single woman making $50k/year than to a single woman making $0/year.

Well, again, that depends on whether the point is to measure the ability to consume, the degree of economic independence, or a little of both.

And, let me give you a hypothetical:

  1. A single American woman with an engineering degree who earns 100k
  2. A single Afghan woman with an engineering degree who used to earn 100k (purchasing power parity), but after the Taliban takeover cannot work at all so marries a guy who earns 100k.

Surely an index which purports to assess gender equality should not equate them.

And, taking a step back, as I have said before, all indexes are going to be imprecise. The problem arises when indexes are used to make fine grained comparison (eg, "the US has less press freedom than Norway because the US scores 95 on a press freedom index and Norway scores 97) for which they are not designed (and not that the GDI is apparently not meant to be a stand alone metric in the first place. It is meant to be compared to the Human Development Index, which is why it has the same three components).

And, let me give you a hypothetical:

The answer is that the woman getting 100K from her husband shouldn't be equated to one who earns 100k from employment, but she shouldn't be equated to someone making zero either. Which the index does. There's a big difference between "not equivalent" and "so not equivalent that it may as well be zero".

  1. Once again, you are assuming that the index is not at all trying to measure economic independence.
  2. Given the challenges inherent in obtaining accurate data, are you not open to the possibility that an index that made the adjustments you suggest would actually be a less reliable measure of what it purports to represent?

Given the challenges inherent in obtaining accurate data, are you not open to the possibility that an index that made the adjustments you suggest would actually be a less reliable measure of what it purports to represent?

The "adjustment" I suggest is "don't use zero", so this question doesn't make sense.

I don't take issue with the idea that indices can be useful despite being imprecise. My point is more that this particular metric fails to capture a significant part of economic power, enough so that it isn't an effective proxy for whatever it's trying to represent.

It also equates an Afghan homemaker making $0 with an American homemaker making $0: surely an index which purports to measure gender equality should not equate them either?

I think the fundamental flaw of using ratio of earned income and formal labor force participation as proxies for command over economic resources is that being a wage earner means simply that: you are providing labor in exchange for money. Within a household, economic organization is usually in-kind, but the non-earner nearly always has substantial power to determine the structure of that internal economic organization and consumption patterns. Assuming definitionally that that is zero is the mirror error as a husband who says his homemaking wife contributes nothing to the household because she doesn't earn money.

I'm thinking about would be a more meaningful metric. My initial gut reaction is the proportion of household consumption that is determined by each gender, and definitionally I think that's right. But it's unclear how to get a metric representing that: women are usually the immediate agents for household spending, but that says little to nothing about who decided what the spending should be. I think maybe tracking how consumption patterns change before and after marriage is better at getting at it, but that has its own issues, like only capturing newly married couples and not existing relationships.

It also depends on what the metric is intended to be used for. The name suggests it's for something like generalized wellbeing of each gender, which is how it's usually represented in the media; perhaps that's to the credit of

I'm thinking about would be a more meaningful metric. My initial gut reaction is the proportion of household consumption that is determined by each gender, and definitionally I think that's right. But it's unclear how to get a metric representing that

Yes, it would be difficult to get that data from very many countries

It also depends on what the metric is intended to be used for. The name suggests it's for something like generalized wellbeing of each gender,

I don't know that the name was particularly well chosen, though of course it was almost certainly meant to carry a particular technical meaning, rather than a vernacular meaning.

As for its intended use, it was meant to be a supplement to the Human Development Index, and per Wikipedia it is was never meant to be "an independent measure of gender gaps when it is not, in fact, intended to be interpreted in that way, because it can only be used in combination with the scores from the Human Development Index, but not on its own."

The woman who relies on her husband indeed has less control, on average, than a woman who earns her own income.

Less control on average, certainly yes, but not zero control on overage. In your example, if women has "10 pct chance of it being devastated by her husband's death or abandonment" then she has on average 90% control of the wealth, not 0.

Consider the case of MacKenzie Scott (Bezos). You and the GDI index say her command over economic resources is 0, while in fact after her divorce from Bezos she was worth $62 billion.

Consider the case of MacKenzie Scott (Bezos). You and the GDI index say her command over economic resources is 0, while in fact after her divorce from Bezos she was worth $62 billion.

  1. Please do not say that "I and the GDI Index" say that. The GDI says that. I said "A woman who has a ten pct chance of having her income obliterated by a natural or an economic catastrophe and a 10 pct chance of it being devastated by her husband's death or abandonment is less secure than a woman who only is at risk from the former."

  2. This is an argument that the index is imperfect. But everyone knows that. The data needed to make it more precise by taking into account the factors you discuss is almost certainly not available for most countries. But the index, despite its imprecision, might nevertheless be accurate, in the sense that a change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground in what it seeks to measure. Adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustments like the one you suggest might well make the index worse at reflecting reality.

This is an argument that the index is imperfect.

It's not randomly imperfect; it's imperfect in a way biased towards a conclusion. An index that is imperfect in this manner is unsuitable to use for forming policy, but forming policy is the whole point of having the index.

I feel like there's a bit of a motte-and-bailey going on here.

The motte is that the GDI is an entirely synthetic metric meant for highly technical, specialized analyses; that it's unsuitable for comparing gender differences; and anyone expecting to be able to use it as such is misapplying it.

The bailey is that it's used as a measure of female oppression, which the creators of it know and which is why they choose to add particular components to it and add things like the life expectancy correction, which is pointless if the goal is just tracking trends in whitepapers but very important if you want to be able to use the GDI as evidence that women have it worse than men pretty much everywhere.

1 Sorry.

2

might nevertheless be accurate, in the sense that a change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground in what it seeks to measure

To the contrary. Consider the case of Nordic countries. They are generally considered at the top of gender equality. And because married women feel safe and have choices, they CHOOSE to spend more time at home with children and CHOOSE to work part-time instead of full-time. But the GDI interprets this as women being less developed.

Adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustments like the one you suggest might well make the index worse at reflecting reality.

I am not suggesting any such thing, but consider your own argument from another perspective: Isn't it the UNDP that is adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustment to the measure of command over economic resources in the form of non-adjusted employment gap and the non-adjusted wage gap?

Sorry

NP

Consider the case of Nordic countries

Sure, but this is essentially a claim that the index is imperfect, isn't it? No matter how an index that covers every country in the world is constructed, it is going to miss nuances somewhere. In some places, it is going to overstate inequality, and in others it is going to understate inequality. That is the nature of the beast. And, as I said, "a change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground in what it seeks to measure." That is all one can hope for, unfortunately.

: Isn't it the UNDP that is adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustment to the measure of command over economic resources in the form of non-adjusted employment gap and the non-adjusted wage gap?

  1. I am not sure that it is true that it is using non-adjusted employment gap and non-adjusted wage gap. Consider this;

Nevertheless, estimates of average male and female per capita GDP are included in the GDI. The restricted availability of sex-disaggregated income data leads the UNDP to use female and male shares of earned income to indicate gender disparities in the standard of living. The female (or male) income share is computed by multiplying the ratio of the female (male) wage to the average wage by the female (or male) share of the economically active population.7 Multiplying the HDI figure for average GDP per capita by the harmonic mean of the male and female income shares adjusts the HDI (downwards, as the male income share is largest for all countries) so that it reflects gender disparities in earned income.8

There seems to be a bunch of stuff going on under the hood. Whether that is good, bad or indifferent is another question; the linked article obviously is suggesting improvements.

  1. I am sure that the data is, to some degree, incomplete or poorly measured. But, the question is, to what degree? As I noted, the data on income is a lot more complete and probably better measured than data on divorce, let alone income after divorce, etc.

Again, I have no doubt that the GDI can be improved. But the initial claim was that it is invalid, and that does not follow from the fact that it can be improved.

No matter how an index that covers every country in the world is constructed, it is going to miss nuances somewhere.

This is a truism. I don't require an index to be perfect, I require an index to not be obviously flawed. Following your statement that "change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground", the answer is: not necessarily. Nevertheless, it is not only the direction but also the amplitude of what it measures. And I think I proved beyond reasonable doubt that "command over economic resources" can not be measured by salary.

I am not sure that it is true that

I said "The UNDP calculates separate command over economic resources for females and males, as a product of the actual Gross National Income (GNI) and two indices: female and male shares of the economically active population (the non-adjusted employment gap) and the ratio of the female to male wage in all sectors (the non-adjusted wage gap)." How is this different from your link? I don't see it.

I am sure that the data is, to some degree, incomplete or poorly measured. But, the question is, to what degree?

My argument is not about the quality of the gathered data, my argument is that it does not measure what it says it measures not even in principle. Standard of living or command over economic resources can not be measured with individual's salary. Not even in principle. Up to 50% of wealth is redistributed by the state, large part of which are direct financial transfers to population. The split of wealth in marriage is closer to 50/50 that to 0/100.

The index is not not imperfect, it is principally incorrect.

Following your statement that "change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground", the answer is: not necessarily.

To clarify, I poorly quoted myself. I did not mean to say that this index actually does that, but rather that whether it does so is the correct metric to use in judging it.

And I think I proved beyond reasonable doubt that "command over economic resources" can not be measured by salary.

No, you haven't. It seems to a perfectly reasonable way to estimate what I understand them to be trying to measure. Whether that is the same as what you understand them to be trying to measure is a different question.

How is this different from your link? I don't see it.

My main point was, "There seems to be a bunch of stuff going on under the hood." Meaning that neither of us know much about their precise methodology.

Standard of living or command over economic resources can not be measured with individual's salary. Not even in principle. Up to 50% of wealth is redistributed by the state, large part of which are direct financial transfers to population. The split of wealth in marriage is closer to 50/50 that to 0/100.

  1. This assumes that the GDI is purely meant to measure the ability to consume, which I am not sure is the case.
  2. Even if it is, as Wikipedia notes, "The GDI cannot be used independently from the HDI score, and so, it cannot be used on its own as an indicator of gender gaps. Only the gap between the HDI and the GDI can actually be accurately considered; the GDI on its own is not an independent measure of gender gaps." The HDI includes per capita income, and apparently the GDI in part is trying to figure out how that varies by gender. Most income worldwide is earned, and even if a large pct of wealth is redistributed by the state in some countries,* how much does including improve rhe index's likelihood of reflecting real conditions on the ground?

*and the norm, even among rich countries, is twenty percent, tops

More comments

But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.

Could he? Most countries have laws against that sort of thing, including alimony. Once they are married, he has literally signed away at least half of his own right to that money.

I think the answer is ‘maybe, maybe not, but he can almost certainly get away with it for a while and it’s cold comfort to an Indian housewife who has to send her children to the sweatshops because of her husband’s gambling addiction that she’ll eventually start getting some portion of his checks’.

Sure, he can maybe get away with it for a while, but the point is that the standard assumes he can get away with it forever. In reality women truly do have practical, legal power over their husbands' salaries.

the standard assumes he can get away with it forever.

This is little more than a suggestion that the index would be more accurate if it discounted a woman's earned income somewhat in order to account for the possibility that a woman with no earned income might recover from her husband. A fine suggestion, but the index's failure to do (assuming it indeed fails to do so) hardly delegitimizes the entire endeavor.

This is little more than a suggestion that the index would be more accurate if it discounted a woman's earned income somewhat in order to account for the possibility that a woman with no earned income might recover from her husband.

You keep talking about how any problems with the index are just inaccuracies. I wonder if you'd accept that excuse for something on the other political side. "Yes, we're exaggerating the number of third trimester abortions, but that's just inaccurate". This kind of inaccuracy is deceptive. It's not excusable just because it's an inaccuracy that doesn't call the whole thing into question--at some point, inaccuracy does call the whole thing into question.

  1. I don't know why you think there are "sides" on this particular issue. But this is pretty rich, since it sure seems that most of the objections seem to be that commenters fear that it says something that commenters don't want to hear.
  2. The problem with your analogy to abortion numbers is that false numbers are just that: false. And true numbers are true. In contrast, as I have repeatedly noted, an index like this one is inherently less than perfectly accurate, And, an index, unlike an abortion statistic, can not be said to be either "false" or "true." So, it is not enough to say, as people have, that it is not perfectly accurate. It might be so inaccurate that is "call[s] the whole thing in question," but neither you nor I nor anyone else here has any idea how "inaccurate" it is (ie, the degree to which it does not reflect what is actually happening on the ground). None of us even knows the precise methodology used. The only one who has posted any description of the methodology is yours truly.

Again, the original claim was that the index is invalid simply because it is not perfect. That is a claim a failure to understand the nature of that which is being critiqued.

The claim is that the UN agency drawing up this index had already written the bottom line of "we don't want to say that Western countries are currently biased in favour of women", due to feminism, and chose what to correct and not correct (note the "women should live 5 years longer than men" thing mentioned above) such that all classic Western countries would come out below 1 (I checked; there are some classic Western countries extremely close to 1 but none above it).

"This agency is running a bottom-line-first algorithm" is a significantly-more-damning criticism than "this agency's index is not perfect". Ignoring a propagandist's numbers is not the ideal strategy, but it does better than taking them at face value (the ideal strategy is to pull apart how their numbers were derived, and derive better ones, but that's significantly harder). And if the agency is ideologically captured, it is not likely to improve its index in the future on metrics relevant to the bottom line, at least absent some effort to change its institutional incentives.

chose what to correct and not correct (note the "women should live 5 years longer than men" thing mentioned above) such that all classic Western countries would come out below 1 (I checked; there are some classic Western countries extremely close to 1 but none above it)

When you calculate the GDI using "equal lifespans is gender parity" instead of "women having 5 years longer lifespan is gender parity", I can confirm that a supermajority of countries listed as "very high human development" end up above 1 (i.e. women are favored), with the gaps comparable to the male-favorable ones in the current index.

More comments

Yes, but the problem is that that is all it is: A claim, with no evidence.

And, it is hardly surprising that few countries are above 1. In how many countries does the average female income exceed that of men? (Note that that is an empirical question, not a normative one, and not a commentary on the causes of any differences).

All you do here is start with a vague premise "Western countries are currently biased in favour of women", then simply assume that every data point that you incorrectly believe* seems to refute that assumption must have been manipulated.

*The GDI is not a measure of bias, and it does not measure 90% of the types of things that make up the pro-female bias that is commonly complained of.

More comments

The index's problems make it seriously misleading for its intended purpose.

You're trying to understate this.

Neither you nor I have any idea of the extent of its problems; I also suspect that you do not know what its intended purpose is.

I think the index is broadly designed to advance certain goals, in particular goals to get women out of childrearing and into the workplace, at the expense of women. Rather than actually measure women's wellbeing, they choose to lump very ideological and unnatural goals such as "women should be in the workplace just as much as men, despite their different inclinations and reproductive schedules" in with much more broadly agreed-upon measures such as life expectancy. Obviously a difference in life expectancy should matter way more than how many women choose to enter the workforce, but the measure puts them on the same level.

One way to attack such behavior without being dismissed as a partisan crank is to highlight the differences between the activist organization's claimed goals and their actions. Things like power over household finances, likelihood of getting abused, and ability to survive/feed children after a divorce are far better indications of women's wellbeing, and men's societal treatment towards them, than any gender pay gap could be, since the latter is caused mainly by women's choices.

I grew up in a very conservative subculture. My sisters and female friends were still very embarrassed to admit they wanted to be stay at home mothers. Even in our subculture, women are heavily pressured to enter the workforce, so I'd argue that in some cases a narrowing gender pay gap is actually indicative of rising misogyny, at least if you define "pressuring women into making decisions they don't want to make" as misogyny.

It’s the UN. Decreasing fertility and economic growth through getting women into the workplace are explicit goals.

But I don’t see how that delegitimizes the whole index- it’s a measure and like all measures is somewhat imperfect. That the imperfections are there because of biases in the people that developed it is ultimately irrelevant; it’s the kind of measure that’s going to have a bias built in.

That the imperfections are there because of biases in the people that developed it is ultimately irrelevant; it’s the kind of measure that’s going to have a bias built in.

Agreed with the first half, though that's pretty much a non-sequitur because I never said its creators' biases were relevant anyways. The only thing that matters is the bias of the measure itself. Sure, maybe some kinds of measures have biases built in, but the extent to which they're biased still varies and matters quite a bit. You can't just lump all measures into either the "biased" category or the "unbiased" category.

Your first sentence:

But I don’t see how that delegitimizes the whole index- it’s a measure and like all measures is somewhat imperfect.

Makes me think you're trying to reduce this down to just the two categories, "perfect" and "imperfect", or that you think I'm trying to do so. I'm not and never said anything of the sort. I am arguing that this measure is more imperfect than most people think, and that attitudes towards it should be updated accordingly.

Obviously a difference in life expectancy should matter way more than how many women choose to enter the workforce, but the measure puts them on the same level

Why is it so obvious? To take an extreme example, the life expectancy of slaves in the US was probably higher than that of free whites in the Caribbean during the same time period, but I dare say that few would argue that slaves were better off. It certainly isn't obvious that they were. Re women, one can certainly argue, "your life sucks, but at least you live a long time," but it does not seem to me to be obvious that everyone must agree.

Things like power over household finances, likelihood of getting abused, and ability to survive/feed children after a divorce are far better indications

  1. That might be true, but you are ignoring an important factor: It is difficult, if not impossible to quantify and accurately measure those things, especially across all the countries of the world. A metric that cannot be measured is less than useless.

  2. The ability survive/feed children after a divorce is almost certainly one of the things that the earned income measurement is meant to proxy for, so this seems to be an argument in favor of the index.

Obviously a difference in life expectancy should matter way more than how many women choose to enter the workforce, but the measure puts them on the same level

Why is it so obvious? To take an extreme example, the life expectancy of slaves in the US was probably higher than that of free whites in the Caribbean during the same time period

I very much doubt slaves lived longer than free whites in the Caribbean. Regardless, though, I didn't even mention income, which your example implicitly compares. What I mentioned was workforce participation. If women were paid 50% of what men were paid for the same jobs, that would be an enormous problem. If women choose to participate in the workplace at 50% of the rate that men do, that's hardly a problem at all, but it's considered equivalent by the GDI.

Re women, one can certainly argue, "your life sucks, but at least you live a long time," but it does not seem to me to be obvious that everyone must agree.

Sure, one can argue that, but not me. That's nothing at all like what I'm arguing. It conflates happiness with income. What I'm arguing is more like "You earn only 99% of what men earn, but at least you live six years longer. I'd trade 1% of my income for an extra 6 years of life, wouldn't you?

That might be true, but you are ignoring an important factor: It is difficult, if not impossible to quantify and accurately measure those things, especially across all the countries of the world. A metric that cannot be measured is less than useless.

The ability survive/feed children after a divorce is almost certainly one of the things that the earned income measurement is meant to proxy for, so this seems to be an argument in favor of the index.

The first two things are already measured across all countries. The third isn't really an objective measurement per se, but there are much better proxies available (I mean come on, just measure income post-divorce) than female earned income.

Workforce participation is a bad measure. The only reason to use it, rather than something better like "average wage of full-time workers", is if you are implicitly privileging the conclusion that men and women are identical, and women entering the workforce at greater rates is just as important as women living longer. Should a woman choose to stay out of the workforce and raise children instead, that's implicitly treated the same on the GDI as if she died at 25 while her male counterpart lived to 80.

I very much doubt slaves lived longer than free whites in the Caribbean.

I think you are underestimating how low life expectancy was in the Caribbean at the time

What I mentioned was workforce participation. If women were paid 50% of what men were paid for the same jobs, that would be an enormous problem. If women choose to participate in the workplace at 50% of the rate that men do, that's hardly a problem at all, but it's considered equivalent by the GDI.

That is an entirely different point than the one I was responding to, which was that life expectancy is obviously more important than the other metrics in the index.

If women were paid 50% of what men were paid for the same jobs, that would be an enormous problem. If women choose to participate in the workplace at 50% of the rate that men do, that's hardly a problem at all,

Why, if the issue is the degree to which women have income independent of the man in their life?

Sure, one can argue that, but not me. That's nothing at all like what I'm arguing. It conflates happiness with income. What I'm arguing is more like "You earn only 99% of what men earn, but at least you live six years longer. I'd trade 1% of my income for an extra 6 years of life, wouldn't you?

That is precisely my point: Life expectancy is NOT obviously more important, among other things because it depends on the relative levels of the various factors.

The first two things are already measured across all countries.

I notice that you seem to assume that we are talking about first-world countries. We are not. Do you think that "power over household finances" and "likelihood of getting abused" are measured in Burundi? In Myanmar? In Sri Lanka? I sincerely doubt that there is data on either of those in more than 20 countries in the world. Especially since "power" of any kind is difficult to measure objectively.

I mean come on, just measure income post-divorce.

Again, how many countries measure that? How many have an incentive to measure it accurately? Not to mention that is ignores post-separation/abandonment/death income. Compare that with income per se, which all countries with an income tax have an incentive to measure. Which measure is more likely to be complete and accurate? Note that Wikipedia has data on divorce rates for only 105 countries and this UN document on divorce includes almost no African countries. And please don't argue that the UN data is from 10 years ago; a metric that only has recent accurate data is of limited utility, because knowing about change over time is important.

Workforce participation is a bad measure. The only reason to use it, rather than something better like "average wage of full-time workers", is if you are implicitly privileging the conclusion that men and women are identical, and women entering the workforce at greater rates is just as important as women living longer.

But, the GDI does not include a measure of workplace participation. It includes a measure of earned income.

And as for "and women entering the workforce at greater rates is just as important as women living longer," so what? I understand that you, personally, value longer life differently than they do (or, more accurately, than how you understand them to value them), but that does not, in itself, make their measure illegitimate or fraudulent. They are just measuring different things.

More comments

That's not even how alimony works in the US, and I'd be very surprised if alimony worked in most low-index countries the same way it works in the US.

The only thing I said which could be reasonably seen as referring to alimony was when I said he's signed away his right to that money. That was in reference to "laws against that sort of thing, including alimony", not alimony alone. Child support is another big one. Laws preventing divorce are also big. Laws against spousal neglect, laws that you have to pay for your spouse's lawyer, etc. The list goes on.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats