This article focuses on how women in todays world are lacking the opportunity to strive through society due to the geography as to where they may be located. It clearly states in the article the wage differences between genders, the shortage of education and employment that women receive, and do not share the same freedoms that women in America have such as driving. Although some countries are better than others in gender equality data shows that no county is perfect. For instance, the United States, Canada, most of Europe, and Australia are the best at gender equality based off of education, the ability to work, and reproductive health. Where as in parts of Africa, parts of Europe, and parts in the Middle East are better at having women be involved in political empowerment and economic participation. Along with in Asia and parts of Africa, women hold economic leadership and management positions much better than other parts of the world. Based off of the geographical mapping of gender inequality, clearly it is still a reoccurring issue all over the world. Also, mapping displays the correlation between opportunities, education, and economic development in more advanced countries. While shocking how certain countries present more equality through political power in countries not as advanced or as equal through other factors such as the ability to have n education. The author of this article explains, “societies which emphasize tolerance, individual autonomy and self-expression over hierarchical, authoritarian values also have higher levels of economic development”. While women’s economic opportunity has improved in more advanced, diverse, and open-minded countries, economic development has a significant role to play in todays world. Along with the fact that women need to continue to fight for their rights and the opportunities that males receive everyday.
Feel free to access the complete article below:
Interesting post! Some of the data provided in this article was presented in a confusing way, particularly in how a higher rate would portray either a lesser or greater amount of inequality from one map to the next. With that in mind, the data seems to roughly follow core versus peripheral boundaries, suggesting that imperialist nations have managed to gain the upper hand in terms of quality of life. I wonder whether this might correlate to the effects of political and economic manipulation of the colonized regions, and how this trajectory has shifted pre- and post- invasion. The author also mentions that societies that are tolerant of "diversity" has the benefit of enabling the economy to "harness more human capital" thus providing a better life for all. This claim is muddled, however, by the unequal distribution of wealth, resources, and rights which negatively affect minorities the most, suggesting that their welcome into society allows them to produce capital but not to reap the benefits.
ReplyDelete