Has the status of women declined or improved over the past thirty years?
April 20, 2007 2:35 AM Subscribe
Has the status of women declined or improved over the past thirty years?
A colleague claims that the status of women, even in wealthy western nations, has declined over the past thirty years. He claims that women have less power and influence, less wealth, face greater barriers, and are just generally "worse off" than they were in the 1970s. He claims that he has statistics to show that what he says is true. Particular claims include that the rate of women becoming Nobel laureates is declining, that the number of women in senior management and political positions is declining, that fewer women are wealthy, and that fewer women own their own businesses.
I told him that this didn't gel with my personal experience that more and more women seem to be better educated, wealthier, enjoying more senior roles in management and politics, and so forth, and that while there are certainly still areas of glaring inequality with men (eg Fortune 500 CEOs, engineering graduates), the gaps are closing, even if only slowly, that most people want them to close, and that I can't think of any areas in which women are worse off. However, I also admit that I don't have any statistics or research to substantiate what is really little more than a gut feeling.
A quick bit of Googling around the UN, World Bank and OECD seems to show that women contribute ever increasing per capita rates of GDP, are more educated, have greater life expectancies, participate at greater rates in the workforce and so on than they did thirty years ago. However, this is far from a rigorous analysis, and perhaps my understanding of women's disadvantage is limited. For example, perhaps rates of improvement are less than those for men, and so while women are absolutely better off, they are comparatively worse off.
I'd appreciate pointers to (or better still, your very concise summaries of) researchthat shows whether women are better or worse off than thirty years ago. I'm interested in global trends, 'western' / 'high / middle income' / 'OECD'-type trends (for nations like the US, UK, Australia, Canada and the EU, for example), and the experience of developing nations, but I'm particularly interested in wealthy western democracies. Thanks!
A colleague claims that the status of women, even in wealthy western nations, has declined over the past thirty years. He claims that women have less power and influence, less wealth, face greater barriers, and are just generally "worse off" than they were in the 1970s. He claims that he has statistics to show that what he says is true. Particular claims include that the rate of women becoming Nobel laureates is declining, that the number of women in senior management and political positions is declining, that fewer women are wealthy, and that fewer women own their own businesses.
I told him that this didn't gel with my personal experience that more and more women seem to be better educated, wealthier, enjoying more senior roles in management and politics, and so forth, and that while there are certainly still areas of glaring inequality with men (eg Fortune 500 CEOs, engineering graduates), the gaps are closing, even if only slowly, that most people want them to close, and that I can't think of any areas in which women are worse off. However, I also admit that I don't have any statistics or research to substantiate what is really little more than a gut feeling.
A quick bit of Googling around the UN, World Bank and OECD seems to show that women contribute ever increasing per capita rates of GDP, are more educated, have greater life expectancies, participate at greater rates in the workforce and so on than they did thirty years ago. However, this is far from a rigorous analysis, and perhaps my understanding of women's disadvantage is limited. For example, perhaps rates of improvement are less than those for men, and so while women are absolutely better off, they are comparatively worse off.
I'd appreciate pointers to (or better still, your very concise summaries of) researchthat shows whether women are better or worse off than thirty years ago. I'm interested in global trends, 'western' / 'high / middle income' / 'OECD'-type trends (for nations like the US, UK, Australia, Canada and the EU, for example), and the experience of developing nations, but I'm particularly interested in wealthy western democracies. Thanks!
To risk stating the obvious, this seems to be an ideological claim (anti-Feminist) rather than a scientific one. Is throwing heaps of data at him actually going to help change his view?
posted by Firas at 3:48 AM on April 20, 2007
posted by Firas at 3:48 AM on April 20, 2007
One of the problems with generating definitive answers to this question is that many of the organizations which have produced statistical data through this period have done so as a part of a larger mandate to improve the status of women. Thus, there is a certian suspicion of confirmation bias in their measurements, as a result of the tasks they are chartered to serve, as it wouldn't be sensible for them to produce figures saying their own efforts were not only ineffective, but actually resulting in worsening conditions for women. So, reports and data from organizations like the UN's Commission on the Status of Women are sometimes seen as self-serving, given their mandate. Further, with respect to UN based initiatives to improve the status of women, there is a political swamping effect that occurs when for larger policy reasons, particular initiatives such as The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) are not implemented by nations like the U.S., so that statistics are not uniformly gathered or reported for major inititiatives.
But the UN affiliated organizations and initiatives are clearly the leadership in international women's policy issues, and once you try to get away from UN auspices, it seems to me that you necessarily are looking at less comprehensive, usually regional efforts by NGOs, which are often tied closely to particular policy issues which the NGOs involved are considering their mission. Basically, nobody is generating reliable statististics simply for the sake of providing unambiguous measurement of women's status worldwide. Doing so would be expensive, and in many regions dangerous, and without funding and related support by those who will employ those statistics for addtional fund raising or as a justification for policy initiatives, there is precious little interest or capability to do so, on a worldwide basis.
So, I think you've got to assemble statistics you like, from sources you deem reliable, in any such debate. For some of the larger Western nations, here are some links:
U.S.
Canada
Germany
posted by paulsc at 4:24 AM on April 20, 2007
But the UN affiliated organizations and initiatives are clearly the leadership in international women's policy issues, and once you try to get away from UN auspices, it seems to me that you necessarily are looking at less comprehensive, usually regional efforts by NGOs, which are often tied closely to particular policy issues which the NGOs involved are considering their mission. Basically, nobody is generating reliable statististics simply for the sake of providing unambiguous measurement of women's status worldwide. Doing so would be expensive, and in many regions dangerous, and without funding and related support by those who will employ those statistics for addtional fund raising or as a justification for policy initiatives, there is precious little interest or capability to do so, on a worldwide basis.
So, I think you've got to assemble statistics you like, from sources you deem reliable, in any such debate. For some of the larger Western nations, here are some links:
U.S.
Canada
Germany
posted by paulsc at 4:24 AM on April 20, 2007
In Atlanta your friend may be correct. Everywhere else, women have made significant numerical gains over the last 30 years in terms of education and jobs, yet men still earn more for the same jobs and men still get preference in hiring. The glass ceiling is real.
posted by caddis at 5:13 AM on April 20, 2007
posted by caddis at 5:13 AM on April 20, 2007
I don't know if it could be said that women are worse off, but in some aspects things seem to have reached a plateau when it would stand to reason they should continue getting better.
For example, the wage disparity between men and women (the study of which, by the way, is by no means an exact science) narrowed in the eighties, but has since leveled off somewhat.
Additionally, while women are more frequently holding professional positions (lawyers, for example) they are still much less likely to advance in them (see, e.g. here).
You also have things like the right to choose, which in the U.S. has been eroded in recent years.
Generally, the problem seems to be that now that women's rights are more visible and things like sexual harassment, gender discrimination and family violence are socially recognized and frowned upon, there is the illusion of women having equality. Yet, actual equality has not yet been achieved -- it's just that inequality has gone underground, so to speak. This has the duplicitous effect of making it harder to identify and eradicate inequality, despite society generally having become a better climate for women.
Therefore, while I'd argue it's unsupportable to claim that women's status has reverted to its pre-1970s state, the illusion of gender equality is creating its own fair share of problems and may cause the remaining inequalities to linger for longer than they ought to.
posted by AV at 5:26 AM on April 20, 2007
For example, the wage disparity between men and women (the study of which, by the way, is by no means an exact science) narrowed in the eighties, but has since leveled off somewhat.
Additionally, while women are more frequently holding professional positions (lawyers, for example) they are still much less likely to advance in them (see, e.g. here).
You also have things like the right to choose, which in the U.S. has been eroded in recent years.
Generally, the problem seems to be that now that women's rights are more visible and things like sexual harassment, gender discrimination and family violence are socially recognized and frowned upon, there is the illusion of women having equality. Yet, actual equality has not yet been achieved -- it's just that inequality has gone underground, so to speak. This has the duplicitous effect of making it harder to identify and eradicate inequality, despite society generally having become a better climate for women.
Therefore, while I'd argue it's unsupportable to claim that women's status has reverted to its pre-1970s state, the illusion of gender equality is creating its own fair share of problems and may cause the remaining inequalities to linger for longer than they ought to.
posted by AV at 5:26 AM on April 20, 2007
When universities report the number of their graduates who have been placed in the job market they exclude certain categories of people. In one of these categories are continuing students. They exclude continuing students from the calculations because they are not "seeking employment" so to say that they are unemployed would be silly.
Similarly, your friend's numbers probably do not mean what he thinks they mean.
"the rate of women becoming Nobel laureates is declining, that the number of women in senior management and political positions is declining, that fewer women are wealthy, and that fewer women own their own businesses"
In order for this to be relevant to whether women are "better" or "worse" off, we first need to show that women's desire to do these things aren't waning. In other words: as women's rights progress, are they going to want the same things that men do?
Maybe, but maybe not... considered from a less "academic" standpoint: if men and women in the world were truly equal, would all of the jobs and categories be split neatly between them? Or do we imagine that, due to innate differences between men and women, they'll want different things and pursue different things even if they have equal capacity?
That's a lot of bluster just to say: statistics in areas of social science are somewhat misleading and the studies often exclude very, very relevant variables. Most people don't fashion their beliefs based on statistics... to the contrary, most people try to justify the things they already believe.
posted by toomuchpete at 6:07 AM on April 20, 2007
Similarly, your friend's numbers probably do not mean what he thinks they mean.
"the rate of women becoming Nobel laureates is declining, that the number of women in senior management and political positions is declining, that fewer women are wealthy, and that fewer women own their own businesses"
In order for this to be relevant to whether women are "better" or "worse" off, we first need to show that women's desire to do these things aren't waning. In other words: as women's rights progress, are they going to want the same things that men do?
Maybe, but maybe not... considered from a less "academic" standpoint: if men and women in the world were truly equal, would all of the jobs and categories be split neatly between them? Or do we imagine that, due to innate differences between men and women, they'll want different things and pursue different things even if they have equal capacity?
That's a lot of bluster just to say: statistics in areas of social science are somewhat misleading and the studies often exclude very, very relevant variables. Most people don't fashion their beliefs based on statistics... to the contrary, most people try to justify the things they already believe.
posted by toomuchpete at 6:07 AM on April 20, 2007
On the point about elected officials, the Center for American Women and Politics has numbers. For example, in 1971 4.5% of US state legislators were women. In 1002, 22.8% were women. PDF in 1971, 7% of statewide elected executive offices were held by women; in 2006, the number was 24.8%. PDF More numbers here.
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:25 AM on April 20, 2007
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:25 AM on April 20, 2007
Type, make that 2006, not 1002!!!
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:26 AM on April 20, 2007
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:26 AM on April 20, 2007
Another fact sheet, from the Census Bureau, may be of interest.
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:29 AM on April 20, 2007
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:29 AM on April 20, 2007
About Nobel laureates:
The Nobel prize is generally awarded for work done some years prior - in physics, 30 years is not uncommon. So if the number of women receiving Nobels is levelling off now, the most obvious implication would be that women in the 1970's were doing less Nobel-worthy research than women in the 1940's.
Or that the Nobel committee has grown more sexist.
However, since we are talking such small numbers here, I think the smartest thing to say is that the fluctuations are statistically meaningless. You only get a Marie Curie every so often...
posted by wyzewoman at 6:34 AM on April 20, 2007
The Nobel prize is generally awarded for work done some years prior - in physics, 30 years is not uncommon. So if the number of women receiving Nobels is levelling off now, the most obvious implication would be that women in the 1970's were doing less Nobel-worthy research than women in the 1940's.
Or that the Nobel committee has grown more sexist.
However, since we are talking such small numbers here, I think the smartest thing to say is that the fluctuations are statistically meaningless. You only get a Marie Curie every so often...
posted by wyzewoman at 6:34 AM on April 20, 2007
The UK Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (pdf), an irreproachable source, finds that:
the gender pay gap is now at its narrowest since the ONS began recording earnings data on such a large and consistent scale in 1970. But the gender pay gap has been closing at a sluggish pace over the past eight years – on average less than one percentage point per year
posted by Phanx at 7:22 AM on April 20, 2007
the gender pay gap is now at its narrowest since the ONS began recording earnings data on such a large and consistent scale in 1970. But the gender pay gap has been closing at a sluggish pace over the past eight years – on average less than one percentage point per year
posted by Phanx at 7:22 AM on April 20, 2007
I think this kind of question really depends on how you define "status" and how you define "women," and how you crunch your statistics.
For instance, a lot of people point to increasing numbers of women in post-secondary schools as evidence of increasing status/equality.
We are all familiar with the claim that education is positively correlated to income. However, Micaela di Leonardo, in Exotic at Home makes the claim that if you break the education vs. income statistics into demographic categories, you find that the correlation is strongest for white men, then white women, then black women, then black men, with, if I remember correctly, white male high school graduates making more (on average) than black males with a university degree.
If these statistics are correct, then an increase in women (and black men, for that matter) at the post-secondary level could be interpreted as the combined effect of increased access to education with continued (or possibly increasing) discrimination in employment. That is, less men attending university than women (mentioned here) might indicate that men have access to better paying jobs at lower levels of education.
posted by carmen at 7:26 AM on April 20, 2007
For instance, a lot of people point to increasing numbers of women in post-secondary schools as evidence of increasing status/equality.
We are all familiar with the claim that education is positively correlated to income. However, Micaela di Leonardo, in Exotic at Home makes the claim that if you break the education vs. income statistics into demographic categories, you find that the correlation is strongest for white men, then white women, then black women, then black men, with, if I remember correctly, white male high school graduates making more (on average) than black males with a university degree.
If these statistics are correct, then an increase in women (and black men, for that matter) at the post-secondary level could be interpreted as the combined effect of increased access to education with continued (or possibly increasing) discrimination in employment. That is, less men attending university than women (mentioned here) might indicate that men have access to better paying jobs at lower levels of education.
posted by carmen at 7:26 AM on April 20, 2007
the number of women in senior management and political positions is declining
The new Finnish cabinet has a female majority, 12 of the 20 ministers are woman.
posted by ijsbrand at 7:28 AM on April 20, 2007
The new Finnish cabinet has a female majority, 12 of the 20 ministers are woman.
posted by ijsbrand at 7:28 AM on April 20, 2007
toomuchpete: Sure, it's possible that when the dust settles, the numbers won't be the same. Thing is, the dust hasn't settled. There are any number of studies, for example, where identical resumes or CVs were sent to academic depts. under male or female names, and the male resume was, on average, considered more qualified and suitable for hiring. There's rather overwhelming proof that bias and discrimination still exist. Then there're other confounding factors: how can we say "there are few female mathematicians because men are simply more interested in math" when kids grow up exposed to stereotypes that boys are better at math, or when girls are pressured to be "well-rounded"? When women disproportionately still bear the costs of child-bearing [particularly with inadequate maternal leave and childcare]? Check out the National Academy of Science report Beyond Bias and Barriers for an analysis of the progress women in science have made and of the barriers that remain.
So sure, "innate differences" may end up playing a role, but it's a red herring to focus on them as a driving force today. Worse: emphasizing them tends to lull people into thinking that things are ok as they stand, de-emphasizing the very real prejudice that still exists.
So while obiwanwasabi's friend is exaggerating [even reports like the NAS report suggest that there's inadequate progress, rather than an actual decline], there is something to be said about the lack of progress in certain fields, or at certain levels of management.
posted by ubersturm at 7:37 AM on April 20, 2007
So sure, "innate differences" may end up playing a role, but it's a red herring to focus on them as a driving force today. Worse: emphasizing them tends to lull people into thinking that things are ok as they stand, de-emphasizing the very real prejudice that still exists.
So while obiwanwasabi's friend is exaggerating [even reports like the NAS report suggest that there's inadequate progress, rather than an actual decline], there is something to be said about the lack of progress in certain fields, or at certain levels of management.
posted by ubersturm at 7:37 AM on April 20, 2007
The Nobel prize is a stupid measure, but it actually reveals some interesting things.
Between the prizes' inceptions in 1901 and 1970, 15 prizes were won by women, for a total of 14 women, because Marie Curie won twice. Of those, six were won for literature, three for peace, three for chemistry, two for physics, and one for medicine. Of the science prizes, fully half were won by members of the Curie family. (Marie Curie won twice, and her daughter Irene Joliet-Curie won once.)
Since 1970, 19 Nobel prizes have been won by women. So in fact, more prizes have been won by women in the past 40 years than in the prize's first 70 years. 9 of those prizes have been in peace. 6 have been in medicine. 4 have been in literature, but all of those have been since 1990. No woman won a Nobel prize in literature between 1970 and 1990, which is pretty shocking.
Now, it's not clear to me what this measures. It's certainly true that a few women won prizes in chemistry and physics in the early 20th century and that none have done so in the past 30 years. It may be that opportunities in those particular areas have declined for women, but it also might be that it was easier for an exceptional woman to be awarded honorary-male status at a time when most women had very few opportunities.
On the other hand, I do think that trends in literature are telling, in part because literary merit is so subjective. I do think that women's status in literature declined quite a bit at mid-century. On the other hand, early 20th century people could respect women authors without thinking that women should actually be equal. They just thought that women were good at writing novels, while men were good at running companies and countries and stuff. Being relegated to a separate and, in fact if not in theory, unequal sphere is not my idea of equality.
But the really telling one, I think, is medicine. It's telling in part because it's backed up by less-ridiculous measures. Women win more Nobel prizes in medicine now, but they've also reached parity in medical schools. They're moving towards parity in medical school faculties. And this matters a lot in day-to-day life, in ways that the demographics of top physicists don't. It matters that one can choose to go to a female doctor, that women are involved in planning and carrying out medical research, that little girls no longer grow up thinking that all doctors are men and all nurses are women.
So yeah, even going by the dumb-ass Nobel measure, your friend is wrong.
posted by craichead at 7:51 AM on April 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Between the prizes' inceptions in 1901 and 1970, 15 prizes were won by women, for a total of 14 women, because Marie Curie won twice. Of those, six were won for literature, three for peace, three for chemistry, two for physics, and one for medicine. Of the science prizes, fully half were won by members of the Curie family. (Marie Curie won twice, and her daughter Irene Joliet-Curie won once.)
Since 1970, 19 Nobel prizes have been won by women. So in fact, more prizes have been won by women in the past 40 years than in the prize's first 70 years. 9 of those prizes have been in peace. 6 have been in medicine. 4 have been in literature, but all of those have been since 1990. No woman won a Nobel prize in literature between 1970 and 1990, which is pretty shocking.
Now, it's not clear to me what this measures. It's certainly true that a few women won prizes in chemistry and physics in the early 20th century and that none have done so in the past 30 years. It may be that opportunities in those particular areas have declined for women, but it also might be that it was easier for an exceptional woman to be awarded honorary-male status at a time when most women had very few opportunities.
On the other hand, I do think that trends in literature are telling, in part because literary merit is so subjective. I do think that women's status in literature declined quite a bit at mid-century. On the other hand, early 20th century people could respect women authors without thinking that women should actually be equal. They just thought that women were good at writing novels, while men were good at running companies and countries and stuff. Being relegated to a separate and, in fact if not in theory, unequal sphere is not my idea of equality.
But the really telling one, I think, is medicine. It's telling in part because it's backed up by less-ridiculous measures. Women win more Nobel prizes in medicine now, but they've also reached parity in medical schools. They're moving towards parity in medical school faculties. And this matters a lot in day-to-day life, in ways that the demographics of top physicists don't. It matters that one can choose to go to a female doctor, that women are involved in planning and carrying out medical research, that little girls no longer grow up thinking that all doctors are men and all nurses are women.
So yeah, even going by the dumb-ass Nobel measure, your friend is wrong.
posted by craichead at 7:51 AM on April 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's ridiculous, though I'm just thinking of my own experiences off the top of my head. I mean, remember the early 80's television show Kate and Allie? Two single moms??? Raising children alone??? OMG!!! ;-)
posted by xammerboy at 8:56 AM on April 20, 2007
posted by xammerboy at 8:56 AM on April 20, 2007
I can tell you that in many parts of the Middle East women's lives are very different than they were 30 years ago. For example, in the 1970s few women on the streets of Cairo wore headscarves and you rarely saw women in full hijab, but now it's rarer that you see an Egyptian woman totally uncovered. Around the world, often as a pre-emptive strike against the overall impression that Western morality is getting progressively looser and looser, there are many women who are currently facing more behavioral pressure from their respective religions and cultures than they did years ago. (Behavior mostly created by men, of course.)
Also, many people say that women's rights in India were much on a much better path in the 1980s than they are today.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:26 AM on April 20, 2007
Also, many people say that women's rights in India were much on a much better path in the 1980s than they are today.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:26 AM on April 20, 2007
We have a woman Speaker of the House, many woman Senators and Representatives. A woman Secretary of State. Women are now the heads of major universities (University of Michigan/Harvard) and corporations (Xerox). Oprah Winfrey is the new Merve Griffin. It's not the Bill Gates Foundation - it's the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A woman commanded the Starship Voyager - and women have commanded shuttle missions in the real world.
My doctors and my daughter's doctors are all women. I wouldn't consider a man as my primary physician. Even my dentist is a woman.
Oh - and women ALSO took the time to have children - or the current generation wouldn't be here.
Television shows and rappers notwithstanding, women are doing very well.
Could it improve? Absolutely. We need 5 justices on the Supreme Court. Until that happens, everything the Supreme Court does is irrelevant. The medical community needs to start paying serious attention to the diseases of women, but as more women are doctors and researchers, that is starting to happen.
Will it improve? Probably. Once the people in their 60's to 100's die off, the last relentlessly sexist generations will be gone.
People of my daughter's generation take the employment of women for granted. Women have always had important roles in government. A woman has always sat on the Supreme Court. Women have always fought (and been wounded and killed) in combat.
The better question is, has the status of men declined or improved over the last 30 years? And the best question of all is, has the status of humanity declined or improved over the last 30 years.
posted by clarkstonian at 9:28 AM on April 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
My doctors and my daughter's doctors are all women. I wouldn't consider a man as my primary physician. Even my dentist is a woman.
Oh - and women ALSO took the time to have children - or the current generation wouldn't be here.
Television shows and rappers notwithstanding, women are doing very well.
Could it improve? Absolutely. We need 5 justices on the Supreme Court. Until that happens, everything the Supreme Court does is irrelevant. The medical community needs to start paying serious attention to the diseases of women, but as more women are doctors and researchers, that is starting to happen.
Will it improve? Probably. Once the people in their 60's to 100's die off, the last relentlessly sexist generations will be gone.
People of my daughter's generation take the employment of women for granted. Women have always had important roles in government. A woman has always sat on the Supreme Court. Women have always fought (and been wounded and killed) in combat.
The better question is, has the status of men declined or improved over the last 30 years? And the best question of all is, has the status of humanity declined or improved over the last 30 years.
posted by clarkstonian at 9:28 AM on April 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think looking at exceptional women can be a red herring: I do think it's a positive that there are more women in prominent roles in government than 30 years ago, BUT I'm not convinced that life has actually improved for the average women. Especially if you take a global view -- Miss Lynnster mentioned India and Egypt, but off the top of my head there's also Iran, where the current government definitely oppresses women more than the one in the 70s, and global problems like urban slums hit women harder -- I'm reading Mike Davis' Planet of Slums right now and he discusses how the lack of basic amenities like toilets are really more of a challenge to women than men, because women can't just take a crap wherever, they're still expected to be modest, which means that they basically have to go in isolated places at night, which -- among other things -- can affect their health generally and makes them vulnerable to sexual assault. Maybe women in developed countries are better off, but that's hardly universal.
Also, that Status of Women in Canada report kmennie linked is dated August 1995, nearly 12 years ago. The current conservative government has slashed the budget and removed the word "equality" from its mandate, and closed a bunch of its offices. Despite the persistent wage gap.
posted by SoftRain at 1:49 PM on April 20, 2007
Also, that Status of Women in Canada report kmennie linked is dated August 1995, nearly 12 years ago. The current conservative government has slashed the budget and removed the word "equality" from its mandate, and closed a bunch of its offices. Despite the persistent wage gap.
posted by SoftRain at 1:49 PM on April 20, 2007
This 2005 report from the Status of Women in Canada may be a helpful source. It has a breakdown of how particular groups of women are faring in terms of poverty--for example, aboriginal women in Canada, as a group, suffer from high levels of poverty.
And following SoftRain's description of the current joke that is our federal government, I cannot even begin to express my disgust at what the Conservatives have done to the Status of Women. The Honourable Bev Oda should resign.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 7:52 PM on April 20, 2007
And following SoftRain's description of the current joke that is our federal government, I cannot even begin to express my disgust at what the Conservatives have done to the Status of Women. The Honourable Bev Oda should resign.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 7:52 PM on April 20, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
For what that's worth. From here, via Status of Women Canada. They'd be the people to ask, too, given their 30-something year age. Well, them and Google Scholar.
As for political positions in one wealthy western democracy: Women -- Federal Political Representation, 1867 to date. That alone makes your colleague sound silly. (So does 'generally "worse off"' -- a fallacy tutorial might be more useful than references there.) Why not just ask him for his "statistics"? He reminds me of The Man in the Pub...
posted by kmennie at 3:37 AM on April 20, 2007