Londondare
I am new here
No bio...
User ID: 2665
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
everything you said is old news, so I'm wondering, why did you bring it up?
I am happy to see that what I discovered for myself is correct and was discovered before. I am kind of flattered.
I brought it up because it is something I didn't know about.I am going to read those articles by Scott that you mentioned. Thanks!
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
I am flattered, thank you. I feel like I just discovered the fire while you in here already cooked the diner :)
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
You have two groups: one is oppressor and the other one is oppressed. Oppressors have control over some special property and they use their power to deny oppressed people access to this property. They then create a system that perpetuates and entrenches this dynamic into the future keeping the oppressed people where they are.
This is perverse logic. I am not a group just because I happened to be born with a penis. Is this what they call identity politics?
How do I send a message to the mods? I have a question and I don't know how/where to ask.
Namely, my post https://www.themotte.org/post/681/how-un-manipulates-the-gender-development is not visible when I am logged out and it says "deleted by user", which is misleading statement. What is going on?
Also, the New post guide in the sidebar says "A submission statement is highly appreciated", but I have no idea how/where to send this submission statement.
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.
I suspect GDI is anti-correlated with the lifespan difference, as countries which have the same male and female lifespan are the ones where everyone fucking dies young.
While this is true for life expectancy, the division of paid/unpaid labour mostly runs in the opposite direction (up to a point - in most gender equal of countries it changes direction again, as women choose to spend more time with their children and choose part-time employment more often than in middle income countries).
"gender inequalities in achievement"
Equating achievement with salary is the manipulation. Mother raising a baby is not a failure because she is momentarily not earning salary. Our society does not measure achievement with a salary, why should the index?
In your hypothetical, the wife's* economic well-being* is as high or higher than that of her husband, but her economic achievement is indeed about zero.
I don't understand this sentence.
A woman who relies on her husband as the breadwinner is dependent on him in ways that a woman who earns her own income is not.
This is of course true, but it does not imply that her command over economic resources is zero. You ignore social norms and even laws that govern the sharing of economic resources in a marriage. By default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her. And as the marketers says, women make majority of purchasing decisions.
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.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
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?
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement.
but you rank them both the same on economic achievement?
You seem to keep changing the definition. Choose just one, economic achievement or command over economic resources? The GDI says it compares command over economic resources.
Only if you define "command" as the ability to make decisions about purchases. But why would you do that?
How else would you define "command"? Don't you think that you command many more resources that just your salary? Do you think retirees command zero economic resources because they no longer earn salary?
why do you assume that "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her."
To be honest, I am from EU and it is true here so I assumed that it is true in the whole western developed world. Can you show me a concrete example to the contrary?
why a reasonable person in the field of international development might find the index useful for many purposes?
Useful for what purpose exactly? To me, the index seems as deliberately constructed to support certain ideology by very unreasonable people. As if they needed the index to show women are oppressed. But if you just used the dimensions from the HDI then it would show that men are much worse off. So they threw in the unadjusted pay gap but it was not enough, men were still worse off, so the threw in also the unadjusted employment gap, and finally, women are the worse off, even if the index does not make sense.
Look at it this way: if gender equality increases, what will the index show? Nordic countries are considered the most gender egalitarian. Married women have security and choices and they CHOOSE to stay with children and work more part-time jobs and less full time jobs. The index interprets it as women in Nordic countries being worse off.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
As the index does, as an ability to independently earn income.
Such definition would determine that retirees have zero command over economic resources. Such definition would determine that MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has zero command over economic resources. Which is obviously false, which in turn means that "independently earn income" can not be the measure of command over economic resources.
The index is meant to apply to all countries, not just in the western developed world.
The index is meant to apply to all countries, not just outside of western developed world. The burden of being correct lies on with the index, not with me.
"Property that one party owned before the marriage
Sorry but this feels like strawman argument. We were clearly talking about division in a paid/unpaid labour that happens during the marriage.
There is no statutory requirement of a 50/50 split of marital property.".
I never said it is 50/50, I said it is not 0/100. I feel frustrated by what I perceive as you shifting the argument.
I am a little skeptical that that is the rule across the EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonial_regime. Again, the point is not that it is always a 50/50 split, the point is that it is almost never a 0/100.
your particular biases
We all have biases, including myself. But I think I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that GDI uses incorrect measure of "command over economic resources".
the Human Development Index, which measure only country-level metrics and hence might miss problems at the subnational level. What is wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with that. Again, my argument never was that subnational level index is wrong.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
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.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
I know some indexes do this, notably the WEF Gender Gap, but I didn't know this applies to GDI as well. Where did you find it?
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
I would expect that including pensions in the index would do little to change the result.
Then you would expect wrong. Women are recipients of majority of wealth transfers.
And were there a country where MacKenzie Scotts made up a substantial part of the population...
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
You are misrembering.
Oh yes, I did say that. Sorry.
But, you said "wealth owned by the couple," not income.
You are right. And thanks, you are teaching me to be more careful with what I say.
But my comment related to your claim about why the index was created,
I am not really claiming to know why the index was created. My little speculation what just that, a speculation.
We are going to have to agree to disagree
I helped me to make my argument stronger and I thankful for that. If you are interested I will be glad to continue this discussion but I am also content with agreeing to disagree.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
whether it does so is the correct metric to use in judging it.
Correlation is not the only criterion. Amplitude matters too.
Whether that is the same as what you understand them to be trying to measure is a different question.
I am not making my own assumptions, I quoted UNJDP on what they say they measure.
Meaning that neither of us know much about their precise methodology.
I disagree. I read their methodological paper, I am even quoting it in my post.
This assumes
Again, I am not assuming anything, UNDP clearly says what the economic dimension means.
as Wikipedia notes
Wikipedia is not a source, what is the actual source of that claim?
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
amplitude is included
I believe it is not. Women receive majority of financial transfers from the government. If a government decides to double tax-deductibles, triple child benefits, or turn Matrimonial regime on its head this will have zero impact on the index. If a sharia laws gets foothold in a country and men are now able to divorce women without sharing their wealth, the index will show zero change.
I was referring to the question of what "command" means.
So what is your definition of command? Make your case, show me why you think MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has no command over her wealth.
I believe there is a citation in the Wikipedia article.
If you want to discuss this point further, please check if the citation is actually correct and link it here.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
But weren’t you talking specifically about pensions, not all transfers
Majority of pensions in the world are social transfers from the government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Pillars.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
Fuuuuuuuuuck!!!!
How did I miss this? TBH I am enraged.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
Often it is, but with negative correlation. The less you earn, the more transfers you get.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
whether an alternative index would perform better.
It would be very easy to construct a better index. If you simply remove the unadjusted employment gap the index would be closer to reality.
but rather whether we all (you, me, and the UN) have the same understanding of what the UN means by "command,"
I don't understand what you are trying to say. But it seems to me that you are in principle unwilling to consider the possibility that UN made a mistake. So I don't think any further discussion makes sense.
have presented evidence
You are mistaking anonymous quote from wikipedia with evidence.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
Not for pensions.
Any chance you could remember what was in your eaten content?
What do you mean by maladaptive traits? lifestyle choices?
And thanks for the sci hub reference, I found it!
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
Greater variability on it's own does not explain the skewing of the life expectancy curve to one side. If it was greater variability on it's own, the long lived men would cancel out the short lived men and the effect of life expectancy would be zero.
Londondare
I am new here
7mo ago
What would be the evolutionary advantage of longevity among women? Helping with grand children and labour? Is there any research around this hypothesis?
My first post here, let me know if am doing something wrong.
Motte, bailey and patriarchy
I have noticed that when feminists talk about the patriarchy they often commit the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Before I continue it is important to note that as far as I know there is no generally accepted definition of patriarchy and how the word is used differs widely even among academics and "experts".
The motte part is a patriarchy theory as used in anthropology and sociology. This part is usually solid and you can use it as evidence that patriarchy is a real thing. Arguments for patriarchy from anthropology and sociology are:
The bailey part is a patriarchy theory as used in feminism. This part is much more speculative and authors rarely try to prove it. Arguments for patriarchy from feminism are:
How feminists typically use the motte and bailey fallacy: They make a claim of the bailey type, for instance "men are the majority of homeless because patriarchy hurts men too". When the opponent attacks the bailey and argues that no such patriarchy exists, the feminist will retreat to the motte and reply with "of course patriarchy is real, do you deny that wives take husbands names, do you deny that we still call ourselves 'mankind'?"
The important part of course is that arguments in the bailey part have no direct causal connection to arguments in the motte part.
More options
Context Copy link