| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2006 03:46:08 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Arms and the women |
Arms and the women
Brian Whitaker
June 20, 2006 03:55 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/mrs_president.html
There's a fascinating league table on the website of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union that compares the number of women in
parliaments around the world.
You'll never guess which country comes top: Rwanda, where 39 out of 80
members (or 48.8%) are female.Five European countries follow: Sweden,
Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. Next is Cuba (36.0%
female).
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Arms and the women |
20 Jun 2006 10:07:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1150879568.495595.259540@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
maff91@yahoo.com says...
Arms and the women
Brian Whitaker
June 20, 2006 03:55 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/mrs_president.html
There's a fascinating league table on the website of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union that compares the number of women in
parliaments around the world.
You'll never guess which country comes top: Rwanda, where 39 out of 80
members (or 48.8%) are female.
Ummmmm.....there's a reason for that based upon recent history. I'll
give you three guesses what it is.
Five European countries follow: Sweden,
Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. Next is Cuba (36.0%
female).
Yep. Patriarchy still has a stranglehold here in the USA.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Arms and the women |
21 Jun 2006 06:41:53 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1150879568.495595.259540@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
maff91@yahoo.com says...
Arms and the women
Brian Whitaker
June 20, 2006 03:55 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/mrs_president.html
There's a fascinating league table on the website of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union that compares the number of women in
parliaments around the world.
You'll never guess which country comes top: Rwanda, where 39 out of 80
members (or 48.8%) are female.
Ummmmm.....there's a reason for that based upon recent history. I'll
give you three guesses what it is.
Disproportionate male casualties in recent civil war/disorder?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Arms and the women |
22 Jun 2006 12:34:05 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1150879568.495595.259540@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
maff91@yahoo.com says...
Arms and the women
Brian Whitaker
June 20, 2006 03:55 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/mrs_president.html
There's a fascinating league table on the website of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union that compares the number of women in
parliaments around the world.
You'll never guess which country comes top: Rwanda, where 39 out of 80
members (or 48.8%) are female.
Ummmmm.....there's a reason for that based upon recent history. I'll
give you three guesses what it is.
Disproportionate male casualties in recent civil war/disorder?
There, you got it in 1 guess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Arms and the women |
18 Jul 2006 05:02:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
You'll never guess which country comes top: Rwanda, where 39 out of 80
members (or 48.8%) are female.
Ummmmm.....there's a reason for that based upon recent history. I'll
give you three guesses what it is.
Disproportionate male casualties in recent civil war/disorder?
The events of the mid 1990's are irrelevant and have been more than
swamped over by the succeeding changes in population.
Rwanda more than made up for its losses within 2-3 years of the civil
war. Humans breed worse than rabbits (literally, in actual fact), and I
seriously doubt even a low grade nuclear war at this point in time
would even make more than a temporary, and easily drowned out, dent in
the population curve anywhere. Rwanda, in fact, is the biggest dent in
the population curve I have on record, and it didn't even register past
a couple years. That's how bad humans breed.
The International Database, US Census Bureau
Rwandan Population (thousands)
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2439 3032 3769 5139 6924 7507 7673 7852 8042 8239 8441
By age (thousands, males listed on top)
00-up 00-04 05-09 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39
4193 717 585 475 489 436 371 263 219
4248 707 580 475 489 438 370 260 207
40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-up
183 143 112 70 42 35 26 15 11
173 154 121 84 61 51 38 23 17
Nothing, in fact, out of the ordinary anymore (except that the 103/100
birth ratio is unique to blacks ... in sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti and
even the US and is therefore almost certainly genetic in origin. Most
of the rest of the world is 105/100, except in more northern climes.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Female Representation in Parliaments (was: OT: Arms and the women) |
18 Jul 2006 04:49:13 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
There's a fascinating league table on the website of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union that compares the number of women in
parliaments around the world.
It's riddled with errors, miscounts and internal inconsistencies (i.e.
the numbers don't even add up). By my analysis, there are about 200-300
in the archive, and they even miscounted the number of women in the US
Senate (!) until I corrected them on it.
You'll never guess which country comes top: Rwanda, where 39 out of 80
members (or 48.8%) are female.Five European countries follow: Sweden,
Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. Next is Cuba (36.0%
female).
The rankings are OK as far as they go. But be advised that at any given
update cycle there are upwards of 10-20 countries that they simply
don't provide stats for at all (not to mention the miscounts). And, in
numerous cases, they have simply put the wrong numbers down for the
wrong countries (e.g. April 2005 and May 2005 are botched up).
Their regional totals don't add up at all. First, there is no actual
listing on their site as to what comprises the regions used to compile
the totals (the listing they provide for regions has little or nothing
to do with the regional designations they use in compiling the totals).
East Timor, for instance, is included with Asia. Second, it's botched
up in several places, particularly with the transpositions that took
place in the April and May 2005 listings. Third, it's got the wrong
countries included. They screwed up the designation of Comoros,
apparently including it with North America during a certain period, and
with the Arab World during another period. And they've added up
Switzerland in a completely inconsistent fashion.
A more fundamental problem with the comparisons runs much deeper than
this. Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship without any bona fide
parliament, other than a rubber stamp. The female representation (and,
while we're at it: the male representation) is, for all practical
purposes, nil.
All the stats have to be appropriately weighted by ratings of the
respective country's political rights and civil liberties. The standard
for this is the FHA ratings, published annually by the Freedom House
Association (http://www.freedomhouse.org). Cuba, it bears mentioning,
has historically been rated at the very bottom on both measures (7's on
both, ratings are on a scale of 1-7), but started to go up into the 6's
in the 1990's. Since then, around 2000, it's dropped back down to 7's
again.
The country report on Rwanda can be reviewed here
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6819
It's ratings are currently 6 for PR, 5 for CL (and going down), which
seriously denigrates its standing amongst female representation in
parliamentary bodies, to the point of nullifying it.
Or, to put it more simply: it don't count if it ain't a democracy.
Communist nations also had meaningless rubber-stamp parliaments which
they used as a phony pretext to disingenuously display their
"egalitarianism", while suffocating the people under the blight of
totalitarianism and locking the power in the hands of the few
comprising the respective nomenklatura of the country. That's why you
see an *apparent* drop in the world total of female representation by
parliaments around 1990. It was a phony drop, since there was nothing
for it to drop from, in the first place, and was actually a rise in
bona fide representation once the ratings of the respective countries
are taken into account.
The simplest back-of-the-envelope recipe is to just weight by the total
PR+CL, with 14 weighed as 0.00, and 2 weighed as 1.00, a linear scale
in between. To get a true picture, you then need to compile separate
stats for *both* male and female representation since (with the
weighting) they won't add up to 1.00 per nation and therefore become
independent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
