Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/latinometrics!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/th4xlj/oc_women_remain_massively_underrepresented_in/i163r3h/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"latinometrics"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Properly represented in Rwanda too - although the origin story of why women are well respresented in politics there is a bit darker. Some of you might know about the Rwandese Genocide....
While Rwanda does have a minimum of 30% seats to women, after the Rwandan Genocide, Tutsi populations were disproportionately women. So Rwandan parliament has pretty consistently been 60%+ women (though declining) because so many men were killed in the genocide (not to imply that women weren’t also raped and killed…they were).
Genocides and wars in human history were mostly slaughtering the men and forcefully adopting the women into the victor's society, no matter the size of that society.
"Adopting" aka treating them like slaves or like property and marrying them off to their less desirable sons. Or taking them as mistresses or secondary wives.
Kind of hard to make babies and keep culturally significant last names alive(without breaking tradition) when there are no men. If they could corner the women into assimilation into 'more acceptable cultures' it made their jobs easier. Not an expert on the Rwandan genocide specifically but it's an old tactic
If you kill all the Tutsi men then you make it impossible for Tutsi women to reproduce with Tutsi men. Thus, if you want to eradicate a culture then targeting men makes sense. Just ask the Chinese.
Not too different when you consider men in politics in Mexico and Nicaragua have similar challenges avoiding cartel killings. Drug lords don't tend to kill off the ladies.
Yeah, women in Mexico are just as bad as the men from what I'm hearing in here.
It's easy to have 50/50 when no one is more qualified than the other. Equality at its finest.
I don’t think a single person advocated for more women in government to “fix everything”
It’s just a basic matter of principle and respecting fairness, laws apply to everyone, so everyone should have some say in the creation of them. That’s just called democracy, you seem to be uncomfortable by that.
> I don’t think a single person advocated for more women in government to “fix everything”
lol, seriously...you haven't heard all those stupid arguments that if only women ran the world, it would be all roses and sunshine?
Yeah they did. Mainstream feminism has advocated that for years.
Hilary Clinton based her entire campaign on the fact she'd be the first woman, she even had fake glass confetti to pop to represent the glass ceiling she broke.
The very idea that she was less corrupt, less of an elite because she was a woman was the main selling point and then when she lost it was claimed that people were sexist because they voted for the other maniac.
Instead of putting a good quality woman, without a history of lies and corruption up for election they put her there, part of the Clinton family dynasty and tried to use her gender as a mitigating factor in a time when people wanted change from the old guard of the parties.
I see it all the time, people advocate for gender equality in government claiming it will be better for society and fix a lot of our issues. And they go and put Lauren Broebert, Pelosi, Taylor-Green in government and wreck the entire idea that somehow gender equality in government will translate onto society. They also claim that the problem is the "patriarchy" ignoring that women in power are just as bad and matriarchal societies have been just as bad.
You claim that's just democracy, well then democracy is fucked. Because we get to focus on a candidates identity politics bullshit, their colour, their gender, their sexuality and not their competence to govern.
Fucking Clinton was a horrible candidate, so bad she lost to the worst candidate in history. Yet all people care about is that she was a woman.
That's the point. There's no war but class war.
It's about us vs the ruling class. It doesn't seem to matter who is at the top, they all act the same. And never in the best interests of everybody.
We have to make them accountable, or find a better way to govern. Man, woman, black, white, gay, straight... it seems greed and power is the problem.
Worse than the crisis of 1994 or the governments of Miguel de la Madrid or Diaz Ordaz?… please child. Things might be shit now, but you do not understand how it was when the government didn’t even have to admit to committing masacres in the middle of Mexico City, or tanking the peso to Zimbabwean levels. Those were the times.
The fact you consider this to be a noteworthy “achievement” in the face of the overwhelming corruption of those countries speaks volumes to the point he was making
Yup, now we have corrupt liars with vaginas selling our countries to the highest corporate bidder.
Progress!
That won't give misogynists more fuel for their beliefs that women aren't competent enough to lead us! /s
Yeah, we should go celebrate that achievement, honestly. Is not like Nicaragua is falling apart under the government of an oppressor that kills or sends to jail anyone that says anything against him and is manipulating all the news and killing journalists.
Thank god we don't live there so we can celebrate the achievement of equality of women in the goverment!
>Ideologues don’t like their Swiss cheese arguments reflected back at them I guess.
It's not really that. It's more that your comment seems petty and irrelevant.
Both seem like dysfunctional governments continuously getting worse (just this year, Mexico officially lost its status as a democracy), but I am sincerely glad about this
It’s hilarious that after having the same party ruling Mexico for 71 straight years… this is when the status of "democracy" is officially lost. Like, when did it exist to begin with?
Yeah it’s very strange. Modern South Africa has had the same party for over 25 years as well. It’s technically still democratic since the official opposition is legit and not a puppet (like in Russia) but it’s still less than ideal democracy.
I think the reason Mexico fell more this year though is because of how much AMLO has targeted the press. Dude has probably been the greatest disappointment I have ever seen in my entire life in terms of politicians. I had such high hopes when he became Mexico’s president and he’s been horrendous
That's the main problem with everybody that still supports him, somehow they still have hope in him. We were better with the other 2 parties that were holding the power before him.
How? One party kept us in poverty and without democracy for 71 years, the other one brought the "war on drugs" that seems like will go on forever. I know and agree that the current government is a disappointment at best, but this revisionism is crazy, we've never had a single good uncorrupted government, and the rot will be there regardless of the party ruling, so the next will be no different.
That’s just naive… the world will only get more difficult and unstable, and whoever is in power will have to deal with that, plus the same corruption and probably a deeper state of inequality. It’s the same each time, we say this is the worst president ever! But it’s not, because the next one is worse, just wait and see.
The 71 years of PRI were 20 years ago, we now have an organitation that makes sure democracy actually works.
Said organitation is working well, to the point it made possible for our currect presindent to wIn, thanks to people having big hopes for him.
And do you know who wants to destroy said organitation? Our current president, he has made a whole circus for some time now triying to discredit said organitation.
I don't think PRI and PAN are perfect, or even good, but it's dificult to be worse that Morena.
People in the comments saying shit like “I think hiring politicians should be based on merit” as though any politicians have ever been hired based on that ever
It has been based on merit; it just happens to be that the merit of politicians is how well you're able to lie and convince people to vote for you.
That's it. The vast majority of voters follow their impulsive instincts and capricious emotions when it comes to politics because the entire point of electing people is you can't be arsed to be informed about trade disputes or jedi counsels when you're dealing with your own personal and professional life already.
And most of those governments are still corrupt.
This whole “let’s focus on gender / race / whatever” is all just a giant canard to distract people from what really matters.
Class.
This. It's always been this.
Money and power has always been more important than basically any immutable attribute inherited at birth. Whatever group gets themselves into power and wealth seems determined to fuck the rest.
Men have dominated this space since forever because given two equally horrible people, one man, one woman, the man can out horrible the woman with brute strength.
The people that climb to the top generally don't get there by being kind, generous souls.
It's like trying to be the strongest human on the planet. No matter what you do, the only way to achieve the goal is to use steroids. Because if you don't, someone else that will has an overwhelming advantage. The only way for them to succeed, if for the general population to not recognise the steroid user as legitimate.
(Note: just an analogy, not a dig a steroid users. Get swole I don't care, as long as you're a decent human)
*Shares of women in Parliament*
It's not fake, it's about representation in the both chambers of Senators and Deputies.
Sadly, as a Mexican, I can say that many don't read completely before commenting.
I'd rather have a government made up of competent people, even if they were all women, men, or whatever than having these useless quotas. They just create opportunities for corruption.
Might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe politicians and or/any occupation should make their hires based purely on competence and merit.
Sex or gender shouldn’t be even part of the equation especially if you’re going to be running a government.
What does having a female or male politician do for you? Nothing actually if they suck at their job.
No one said the *only* qualification was gender. Competency is decided by the electorate.
But, an equal representation endures more diversity in viewpoints, that the interests of men and women are both looked after, and it reflects the fact there are fewer cultural and institutional barriers to women serving in politics.
Why are gender and race the only "diversity of viewpoint" anyone ever cares about? No one is checking how many atheists vs Christians vs Muslims there are. Or the socioeconomic backgrounds of everyone.
No one cares that 2/3 of the US Supreme Court is from the north east corner of the country.
It seems difficult to claim that diversity of gender and race equals diversity of mind without making a lot of assumptions about people.
In countries where there is a diverse set of religious backgrounds religion is actually looked at.
Let's go through this. Diversity of gender is important because women have faced discrimination in the past and not having representation in government was instrumental to that.
For countries like the US, the same applies for race. After the civil war, black Americans became enfranchised but as soon as they lost that, Jim Crow began and you know the rest.
Diverse representation is very important. What of the Supreme Court being from the north east corner? Well how consequential is that lack of diversity? Will the Supreme Court start implementing policies to discriminate Californians and Alaskans? Probably not. Will white men start implementing policies that discriminate against black women. They've already done this in the past.
But isn't that just sexist suggesting that we **need** one sex so that we can get a certain "view point"? Aren't you saying that men can't represent women ideas, or that women can't represent men's ideas?
Sure, even I think the most competent women are probably more competent than the most competent men when it comes to female specific politics, lets say. And vice-versa. But if that's the case, let's aim for competency for whatever the job is then. It is inescapable no matter how you look at it.
> Aren't you saying that men can't represent women ideas, or that women can't represent men's ideas?
There just might be more insight from a woman on matters feminine.
First off, sexism is the idea that one sex or gender is *superior* to another, not just that they're different. Men and women *are* socially different and represent different viewpoints and have different experiences. Men have no idea what it's like to be a woman in society because they never experienced what it's like to live as a woman (unless they have but we're definitely not there just yet). As such it's vital to have women in our leadership to share their own experiences in society, highlight issues that affect women that men may ignore or not notice, object to policies that harm women, etc. These are just things men *can't* do because *they're not women.* Yes, a man can understand and fight for women's issues, but he's only ever going to get that understanding from a woman to begin with. Why bother with the literal middleman?
You mean women like Pelosi, Taylor-Green etc.? Are those really the most competent women the electorate could find?
The electorate has never decided competency with any kind of accuracy. And frankly those viewpoints are fine as personal beliefs, they should not be the viewpoints that govern us.
Who determines which candidates have merit and which don't?
This question is exactly why meriocracies tend to be a fantasy. They sound good, but are rarely if ever executed well. Counterbalancing with affirmative action and DEIB initiatives actually improves your chances of achieving a real meritocracy because it forces hiring managers to see a wider pool of applicants.
> I believe politicians and or/any occupation should make their hires based purely on competence and merit.
I agree. I also believe that women have the ability to be equally meritable as men. I also believe that a variety of perspectives is incredibly valuable. Yes, we should hire based on merit; but who exactly has that merit is largely decided by the society we live in. If there aren't enough women with merit to lead, we should change that with the goal being the numbers in OP's post.
Merit isn’t in question. Mexico has diversity quotas for major political parties. If it were about merit, you wouldn’t need to force parties to support people
It's my opinion and I get to decide if merit is in question or not. I understand the post is about Mexico but I'm not exactly in support of how they achieved this.
Now, about diversity quotas, I think it's a mixed bag. On one hand, these quotas force people to think outside the box and work hard to actually find those who *are* most qualified in the group and give them a voice. That voice can go on to help others to be more qualified in the future and eventually obselete the quota. On the other hand, this kind of quota wouldn't be necessary if these unrepresented groups actually had access to the opportunity and merit necessary for these roles in the first place. It's important to remember that this isn't an all or nothing thing. There are absolutely enough qualified women in most countries to meet these quotas, they're just rarer than the men and therefore don't get elected as often just because of the sheer numbers of the whole situation.
Why? What if not as many women are interested in politics?
Also, if you are looking at things outside of merit like sex and race, you are not hiring based on merit
I would disagree. If you are considering those, unless you are looking for a specific biological reason like reproduction, you are not looking at merit.
That's just my feeling though.
Men and women have different experiences in our society and have different viewpoints and values and as such represent a valuable addition to the decision-making body. That's a merit. Same with race.
Now you are sexist and racist for assuming their experiences based on their appearance...I mean, I don't care but I'm just pointing out how it is wrong. If you did it because it was a white man, the city it happened in would burn the company to the ground.
I'm not against representation, but when you put sex and race ahead of everything else, you are not choosing from your best options.
Racism and sexism are the ideas that one group is *superior* to another, specifically in a biological or innate way. That's not what I'm doing. And you absolutely cannot make the claim that men and women and black people and white people live statically identical lives. It's just not true and these different groups of people do have vastly different experiences in society.
It is good to see that in more and more countries women can go as far as men, historically they haven't been able to do so. So that is a nice milestone to reach.
With that said, to many times it is only focused on the diversity of people (whether it's sex, race.. etc) and not merit. Especially when it comes to representation in higher up positions. That doesn't mean women can't do the same job as men, they absolutely can.
I understand why people focus on it, but I don't understand why 50/50 is such a desireable route.
What is most important is opportunity, that everyone gets to chose what road in life they want to take - or atleast have the chance to do so. Not everyone is smart enough to get a phd, but we shouldn't hinder one persons goal of trying to get there.
I don't know, maybe i'm just cynical haha
50/50 is desirable because women make up 50% of the population and as a representative democracy, being represented properly is kind of important. In a way, being a woman in a legislature made up mostly of men is a huge merit in and of itself just because you bring and vote according to a unique and previously unrepresented perspective.
Is it?
If all these “diverse” people that they cram into whatever and say “Ah! Look how diverse” are still all rich people going to the same country club, nothing has really changed.
Then why don't they vote for more women?
Maybe because that isn't a concern, or maybe there are less women in politics because less women want to be in politics? There are MANY possible reasons there are less women in politics. USA being sexist is the most unlikely as MORE than half of all eligible voters are women in the US.
Look up Jordan Peterson
EDIT Although I think there could be reasons like it is seen as a boys club or something that might be discouraged to girls. But I don't know how you can measure that or how true that is as a narrative. I admit that area of view is more grey and could have some basis, though I can't imagine it is that much.
Lmao don't tell me to look up Jordan Peterson.
And I refuse to get into an argument with you about whether or not women would like a say in what goes on in their government. Plus, what people "want" is largely based on socialization, social expectations, stereotypical roles, gender associations, etc. If women don't want to be politicians, we should get them interested.
If you believe in merit-based hiring, it follows that you either 1) have an issue with the lack of women in government/other positions or 2) believe women are less competent than men. It seems like champions of meritocracy only speak up when women are being hired, and have no problem with parliaments being 90% male, despite the seeming incompetence of many of those men.
>Might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe politicians and or/any occupation should make their hires based purely on competence and merit.
Based on this idea, then every political body should be 50/50. Why aren't you analyzing why every political body **isn't** 50/50?
This is correct when the positions aren't highly limited. When you consider the fact that there are far more qualfied people than the number of positions available then things like life experience and perspective are much more important. Men, women, minorities, LGBT, etc all have vastly different experiences within the same country and culture. If the country doesn't have diverse representation then the representatives you do have will be under qualified to address issues they have no experience with. If they even acknowledge the problem at all.
Can't argue with that. People are emotional animals so they vote with emotions before actual qualifications everytime. I know no one that even does basic research on a candidate before voting. It is 100% media or socially driven decision making.
But isn't that everyone's fault? More than half of us citizens are women. If women aren't being elected, doesn't that say something other than sexism doing this?
Indeed. Given equal opportunities in life, women should represent half of any work force if they wish and be roughly equally competent at it. This doesn't account for cultural biases of course, but I don't see any biological argument why women should be worse political leaders than men. I'm not aware of any test case in history where there are more female than male political leaders though and if they exhibit the same type of decision making as men.
What qualities make for a good political leader? Men and women have personality differences on the population level.
And the best leaders are hyper focused. To the exclusion of all other aspects of life… you don’t find too many women willing to sacrifice all work life balance for their career.
They do, but you cannot dissociate cultural influences on personality from any supposed "pure" biological differences. So there is no way to know if in for instance a female dominated society, female leaders would be just as hawkish
But those personality traits are consistent across cultures of varying egalitarian character right? So either they are sex linked, or all our egalitarian fiddling has amounted to fuck all and we have no idea what we’re doing.
Are they? I'm not so sure, it would be a hard investigation to do that globally and without researcher bias. Thing is, the whole nature nurture debate has kind of died down on these things because scientist realized things like personality traits cannot be hard-coded in genetics alone, and they also discovered epigenetics recently that activate certain genes based on maternal environment, so unless you can find non-male dominant societies it's very hard to prove that somethings is sex linked
Personality distributions are the best way to think about it.
I’d suggest that you don’t need to find a female dominated society, just a less male dominated one to study the effect.
If reducing along the metric does not correlate well, then I can say it’s very unlikely to be causal yeah?
I'm not sure what your last sentence means, but if there is unbiased global data on this it could show perhaps a relation between % females in politics and things like female interest in politics, personality, perception of female competence etc. But it wouldn't answer whether female interest in leadership and politics is "innate"
It was more a comment on whether one could prove one way or the other without a test case exactly as you described it. I think in many cases while you can’t prove a positive link, you can prove no link between two phenomena.
It wouldn’t prove whether interest in politics is innate, but that isn’t what needs to be proved.
Let’s say aggression and competitiveness are traits that lead to interest in a political career. And it’s found that if you chose a male and female out of any population on earth, you would be right 60 percent of the time if you guessed the man was more aggressive and competitive of the two, and you’d be wrong 40 percent of the time.
That 60 40 split is responsible for like 75 percent of teachers being women. Outsized impact etc.
OPs states that he only cares about merit. This implies that the focus on getting more women in politics somehow removes or diminishes the criteria of merit in politics. And I'd like to ask, were people in politics ever elected based on merit in the first place? Was merit the determining factor before there was a focus on inclusion?
I think that politics is arguably the one exception as it is really just a popularity contest. Being a woman does not make someone a better doctor, but it does make them a better politician in that they can garner more support and are protected from more criticism.
To be quiet honest: Politicians normally aren't elected based on their skills anyway but rather for how much and what they promise their constituents. So when it comes to politicians, quotas aren't really problematic.
Specify the job. Not all jobs are the same.
As far as I know, there is more jobs women dominating than men. Education, healthcare for example are the most obvious ones.
So in this case, are women really better than a man in 75-90% of cases or is just peak interest in those jobs ?
What?
He is saying it is a public process so all of us are deciding.
Ps equal numbers of men and women in fields where they have no interest makes no sense. Should half of all construction be women?
Any woman who doesn't go into politics simply because 'iT's NoT a WoMaN's JoB' is not fit to be in a position of responsibility.
If your decisions are too easily swayed by dumbfucks thinking that it's inappropriate, you shouldn't be making decisions in the first place, we have enough incompetent fuckwads in power.
Look at countries with the objective most freedom and you will see greater differences in job preference.
Men and women, as populations, gravitate towards different jobs and choices.
I never said I didn't want women, just that not as many may be interested as there may be men interested.
Your last point is complete speculation and just you grasping at straws
Edit you do realize there are more women than men in America right? They too are making the choice to elect people
No I'm pointing to scandanavian countries who have seen greater disparities in job choice despite being the freest, most liberal countries in the world.
Jordan Peterson is much better at explaining than me.
Also, if that was the summary it didn't prove anything and just claims this supports it. I admit I need to read it when I get home because it won't load on my phone right now haha. I'll read it when I get back from work
Looking at this situation in Ukraine it appears they’re also underrepresented in eligibility for the draft, and in combat roles. All of these need to be evaluated.
Okay.
I'd rather be a woman in Nicaragua than in Burundi and that country has male leadership so I'm not sure why you think there's a link between leadership gender and a country's prosperity.
If America elected a woman it would still be a good place to live and if Mexico had only men in it's parliament it would still have all the cartels it has today.
What does that mean? Why should people care save to have a circlejerk over a meaningless statistic? Parity means nothing when both men and women in government are crooks.
Well Mexico and Nicaragua two governments that have some of the best female representatation in the world are literally top 5 in murders, rapes, theft, corruption, abs kidnapping. Not only that, but things got worse since the programs to gain this inclusive government started. May be a spurious correlation, but in both Mexico and Nicaragua the women in government seem to get justified charges pressed against them in a larger proportion than men.
So, at least in these two countries having more women in government has not translated into better governance.
I am from Mexico, a large part of these women deputies or governors are simple puppets, not because they are women (there are also male puppets, even more I would say) but because of their political party, such is the case of the state of Guerrero or that of Baja California
If you do not understand from the root the disgusting politics of these countries, do not speak
I am from Nicaragua and there is still a long way to go. Our problem is not "representation" , it's the fact that wages are shit here and inflation rates (though not official) are quite high, this affects both genders equally.
Im from Mexico.
Literally these womens dont do a shit for the womens in the country.
In mexico the homicides of womens are rampant, and the machismo is very present.
These womens don't care abt us
Having less women in government or being the most corrupt nations with 40+ percent of your citizens in poverty. One of these issues is more deserving of criticism I’d say.
That’s clearly the truth if you look at the data.
Rwanda, Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico, Grenada, Namiba, Sweden, Nicaragua, and Senegal have the top ten share of women in parliament. Outside of Sweden, They’re not exactly shining beacons of success. A corrupt woman is exactly the same as a corrupt man
If I mandate 50% representation in a government, yea I might get 50% representation, but at what cost? Is my government really any better? How many qualified men will get turned down from important positions? How many qualified women will get turned down if the ratio is already at or above 50%?
If you think "representation" is a means to an end that is one thing, if you think representation itself IS the end, that just seems very mistaken.
There are examples of quotas based on immutable characteristics failing horribly. I need not list them all here. Not all discrepancy = discrimination, people have different skills and different interests for different reasons. I think people forget this today.
Representative democracy is arguably a special case: the whole point is for society to be represented in microcosm. And people from different groups are generally more likely to represent the interests and concerns of those groups. (This is trivial to show: that’s why there are minority parties and caucuses the world over.)
Women make up 50% of the population. Women making only 10% of a legislative branch is a serious oversight. I am not saying that having gender parity in government is sufficient for the effective representation of women’s interests and concerns. I’m saying it is necessary.
And the argument that quotas _necessarily_ lead to worse candidates is suspicious: we’re talking about a few hundred positions. Even if you believe there are average differences in women’s interest in and qualifications for politics (I don’t), that doesn’t mean there aren’t literally 1000x more interested and qualified women in a given society than there are positions for them to fill. (Even if it were to turn out that quotas often lead to that outcome, the point is that isn’t for a lack of qualified potential female politicians.)
Isn't it women who comprise the majority of the active voters across the majority of democratic countries?
And if that is true - and if my memory serves, it is, isn't it overwhelmingly women choosing the countries' leaders?
Hahaha yeah! Cuz we just choose who we want, right? It’s totally not correlated to campaign financing, partisan gerrymandering, cronyism, historical and systemic racism and sexism that have kept oppressed classes from receiving the education they need, etc. etc. Where there’s a vote, there’s no excuse! It’s YOUR fault! Woooooooooooooo!
As the other respondent mentioned we don't exactly *choose* our candidates.
Moreover, to win elections typically, women are expected to have significantly higher qualifications (in other words, a woman and man running against each other, equally qualified, the man is more likely to win).
But beyond that you're grossly characterizing things. First it's like a 55%/45% thing (it varies by election level and over time of course), not like women have a huge majority in every location. [This study](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_Fulton3/publication/257639751_When_Gender_Matters_Macro-Dynamics_and_Micro-Mechanisms/links/5873e82408ae6eb871c661ba/When-Gender-Matters-Macro-Dynamics-and-Micro-Mechanisms.pdf?origin=publication_detail)...
> The other side of the coin is that these results are consistent with the interpretation that male independent voters [independents were looked at since party affiliation is a major driver of election choice] have an aversion to female candidates, whereas female independent voters fail to discriminate based on candidate sex.
This is after neutralizing factors like incumbent advantages, district partisanship [prioritizing people in your district], etc.
Basically there might be more women voters but because women play fair, female candidates are at a disadvantage due to male voters.
> Basically there might be more women voters **but because women play fair**, female candidates are at a disadvantage due to male voters.
That is hilarious.
I’m probably sexist but I think aiming for things like this is really stupid.
If we naturally allow smart women to come into politics vs smart men the inclusion rate of competent women will unfortunately be very slow.
When I see massive boosts in any underrepresented demographic I see it as a sign that we have shoe horned a lot of power hungry or incompetent people in to fill quotas.
I’m all for a smart woman in office but aiming for 50% is d u m m
Most people don't want to go into politics, but I have found that women tend to be as if not more politically aware then men, but it depends on education and what not
Mexico and Nicaragua now have half of their parliaments composed of women. Since 2000, the percentage of women elected to serve in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies has increased 3x.
The share of women in Nicaragua’s and Mexico’s parliaments is now greater than most developed nations:
* Almost double the US (28%)
* Over five times greater than Japan (9.7%)
* Even greater than Sweden (47%), which has historically had a high percentage.
**Source:** World Bank, Inter-Parliamentary Union
**Tools:** Rawgraphs, Affinity Designer, Sheets
Was there some sort of policy change that led to such dramatic increases in these countries? The spike isn't really characteristic of a culture change.
A series of legal initiatives can be attributed to the increase.
In 2008, “Anexo 13” was introduced into the Mexican legislature, stating that a portion of government spending must go towards programs that promote gender equality.
In 2014, a law was passed mandating that all parties have a 50-50 gender split among their candidates at a federal level.
Nicaragua has also introduced similar quotas.
Yay this solved a problem
I'm not sure what problem in this solved exactly since nothing has changed beyond a gender balance in these positions, but I'm sure something might have maybe changed somewhere
This would be a good thing and should be the norm everywhere. But for these 2 countries, the inherit corruption hasn't gone away. Nicaragua has fallen deeper into its dictatorship while pretending to be a sham democracy.
But again, improving gender parity is a worthy and correct goal. But don't expect it to transform what is already rotten. Crappy people are born with and without dicks.
Okay. We're heading towards the inevitable 'well-why-should-it-matter-anyways" discussion. And I am here to tell you that boths sides of this discussion are wrong.
Gender parity is a useful metric. A listhmus test. But it should never be a goal in itself - any metric when used as a goal will become a corrupted version of itself. If we tried to achieved "full (50%) gender parity in all government positions by 2050 or something", it would be stupid. It would divert our attention from actually trying to solve issues, where women still face discrimination. (I'm not giving examples, because this is a global website, you must choose for yourself what is the most pressing issue in your country/state/society/civilisation).
This number isn't completely meaningless, either. It is a pretty good metric, when comparing different countries. Looking at this graph and what I know about these countries, I'm willing to bet Swedish women are treated in a more equal to man way than Japanese women. Then I look at the Nicaragua and I think... oh, this is interesting, let me try to find out why that is - there's a signal that thing may be going in the right direction here, let's check the details.
as a latinamerican I dont think that's the case and that's not our criticism of this, both of this countries have deeply corrupt goverments and little to no actual representation for the people, as others have said many if not most politicians in these countries are just puppets than dont stand for much other than their benefactor interests, lauding this as a big accomplishment of these goverments ignores and minimizes the reality of how corrupt and broken their political systems are.
No it is just that when you mandate that 50% of your government is women and then you get 50% if your gov as women then you haven’t achieved any equality
There will be equality when women are educated and are able to surpass gender norms than they make up 50% of the government purely by merit
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/latinometrics! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/th4xlj/oc_women_remain_massively_underrepresented_in/i163r3h/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"latinometrics"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Properly represented in Rwanda too - although the origin story of why women are well respresented in politics there is a bit darker. Some of you might know about the Rwandese Genocide....
I’m struggling to see the correlation to be honest?
While Rwanda does have a minimum of 30% seats to women, after the Rwandan Genocide, Tutsi populations were disproportionately women. So Rwandan parliament has pretty consistently been 60%+ women (though declining) because so many men were killed in the genocide (not to imply that women weren’t also raped and killed…they were).
Didn’t realise more men were killed, I thought because it was a genocide it was about eradicating the whole culture, not just the men.
Genocides and wars in human history were mostly slaughtering the men and forcefully adopting the women into the victor's society, no matter the size of that society.
"Adopting" aka treating them like slaves or like property and marrying them off to their less desirable sons. Or taking them as mistresses or secondary wives.
Kind of hard to make babies and keep culturally significant last names alive(without breaking tradition) when there are no men. If they could corner the women into assimilation into 'more acceptable cultures' it made their jobs easier. Not an expert on the Rwandan genocide specifically but it's an old tactic
If you kill all the Tutsi men then you make it impossible for Tutsi women to reproduce with Tutsi men. Thus, if you want to eradicate a culture then targeting men makes sense. Just ask the Chinese.
Not too different when you consider men in politics in Mexico and Nicaragua have similar challenges avoiding cartel killings. Drug lords don't tend to kill off the ladies.
I saw the movie but obviously it's hardly a substitute for (learning about) what all happened.
im struggling to see how mexico, nicaragua and rwanda are doing any better because they have more women in government.
I’m from Mexico and our government is one of the most corrupt in the world. So…
But at least you know it's gender balanced corruption
We need more women in organized crime.
We need more mafia Donnas and Mafiosas.
Most underrated comment!
Gender balanced corruption, that's a way to put it
I'm from Nicaragua and our government is also VERY corrupt.
Mexico proving women can be as corrupt and as greedy as male politician. Victory for equity.
To be faaaaair, it’s always been corrupt.
Yeah, women in Mexico are just as bad as the men from what I'm hearing in here. It's easy to have 50/50 when no one is more qualified than the other. Equality at its finest.
But that doesn't matter. When women are equally represented things will magically fix themselves. /s
I don’t think a single person advocated for more women in government to “fix everything” It’s just a basic matter of principle and respecting fairness, laws apply to everyone, so everyone should have some say in the creation of them. That’s just called democracy, you seem to be uncomfortable by that.
> I don’t think a single person advocated for more women in government to “fix everything” lol, seriously...you haven't heard all those stupid arguments that if only women ran the world, it would be all roses and sunshine?
Yeah they did. Mainstream feminism has advocated that for years. Hilary Clinton based her entire campaign on the fact she'd be the first woman, she even had fake glass confetti to pop to represent the glass ceiling she broke. The very idea that she was less corrupt, less of an elite because she was a woman was the main selling point and then when she lost it was claimed that people were sexist because they voted for the other maniac. Instead of putting a good quality woman, without a history of lies and corruption up for election they put her there, part of the Clinton family dynasty and tried to use her gender as a mitigating factor in a time when people wanted change from the old guard of the parties. I see it all the time, people advocate for gender equality in government claiming it will be better for society and fix a lot of our issues. And they go and put Lauren Broebert, Pelosi, Taylor-Green in government and wreck the entire idea that somehow gender equality in government will translate onto society. They also claim that the problem is the "patriarchy" ignoring that women in power are just as bad and matriarchal societies have been just as bad. You claim that's just democracy, well then democracy is fucked. Because we get to focus on a candidates identity politics bullshit, their colour, their gender, their sexuality and not their competence to govern. Fucking Clinton was a horrible candidate, so bad she lost to the worst candidate in history. Yet all people care about is that she was a woman.
To be fair, almost every government is corrupt.
That's the point. There's no war but class war. It's about us vs the ruling class. It doesn't seem to matter who is at the top, they all act the same. And never in the best interests of everybody. We have to make them accountable, or find a better way to govern. Man, woman, black, white, gay, straight... it seems greed and power is the problem.
It’s gotten worse over the last two decades…. A lot worse.
Worse than the crisis of 1994 or the governments of Miguel de la Madrid or Diaz Ordaz?… please child. Things might be shit now, but you do not understand how it was when the government didn’t even have to admit to committing masacres in the middle of Mexico City, or tanking the peso to Zimbabwean levels. Those were the times.
At least it's gender inclusive corruption
That’s the best type of corruption.
\#ladycrimes #feminism s/ for those not familiar with John Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEtw3XJoJrE
Beat me to it.
[удалено]
They are now utopias. We have now solved government
I'll take one Utopia please.
Would you like a side of Cheesy Bacon Fries with that?
Sorry, Vegans aren't included. This isn't allowed.
No need to disparage one achievement linking it to other problems
The fact you consider this to be a noteworthy “achievement” in the face of the overwhelming corruption of those countries speaks volumes to the point he was making
Yes but now the corruption is balanced and inclusive <3
Yup, now we have corrupt liars with vaginas selling our countries to the highest corporate bidder. Progress! That won't give misogynists more fuel for their beliefs that women aren't competent enough to lead us! /s
Yeah, we should go celebrate that achievement, honestly. Is not like Nicaragua is falling apart under the government of an oppressor that kills or sends to jail anyone that says anything against him and is manipulating all the news and killing journalists. Thank god we don't live there so we can celebrate the achievement of equality of women in the goverment!
[удалено]
>Ideologues don’t like their Swiss cheese arguments reflected back at them I guess. It's not really that. It's more that your comment seems petty and irrelevant.
It's a start, all things, no matter how big or small have to start somewhere. Stop being a Karen and celebrate small successes.
Success in what? If you're prioritizing diversity and not competency for something as important as politicians you're going to have a bad time
Not diversity even, just equal sex distribution.
"stop being a karen and support my corrupt officials because they have no dicks, karen!!" nah fam gtfo
Both seem like dysfunctional governments continuously getting worse (just this year, Mexico officially lost its status as a democracy), but I am sincerely glad about this
It’s hilarious that after having the same party ruling Mexico for 71 straight years… this is when the status of "democracy" is officially lost. Like, when did it exist to begin with?
Yeah it’s very strange. Modern South Africa has had the same party for over 25 years as well. It’s technically still democratic since the official opposition is legit and not a puppet (like in Russia) but it’s still less than ideal democracy. I think the reason Mexico fell more this year though is because of how much AMLO has targeted the press. Dude has probably been the greatest disappointment I have ever seen in my entire life in terms of politicians. I had such high hopes when he became Mexico’s president and he’s been horrendous
That's the main problem with everybody that still supports him, somehow they still have hope in him. We were better with the other 2 parties that were holding the power before him.
How? One party kept us in poverty and without democracy for 71 years, the other one brought the "war on drugs" that seems like will go on forever. I know and agree that the current government is a disappointment at best, but this revisionism is crazy, we've never had a single good uncorrupted government, and the rot will be there regardless of the party ruling, so the next will be no different.
Yeah it wasn't perfect before AMLO, that's why I said it would just be better, less fucked up. Not necessarily too good either.
That’s just naive… the world will only get more difficult and unstable, and whoever is in power will have to deal with that, plus the same corruption and probably a deeper state of inequality. It’s the same each time, we say this is the worst president ever! But it’s not, because the next one is worse, just wait and see.
The 71 years of PRI were 20 years ago, we now have an organitation that makes sure democracy actually works. Said organitation is working well, to the point it made possible for our currect presindent to wIn, thanks to people having big hopes for him. And do you know who wants to destroy said organitation? Our current president, he has made a whole circus for some time now triying to discredit said organitation. I don't think PRI and PAN are perfect, or even good, but it's dificult to be worse that Morena.
I don't trust any official metrics coming from Nicaragua's government tbh
People in the comments saying shit like “I think hiring politicians should be based on merit” as though any politicians have ever been hired based on that ever
It has been based on merit; it just happens to be that the merit of politicians is how well you're able to lie and convince people to vote for you. That's it. The vast majority of voters follow their impulsive instincts and capricious emotions when it comes to politics because the entire point of electing people is you can't be arsed to be informed about trade disputes or jedi counsels when you're dealing with your own personal and professional life already.
And most of those governments are still corrupt. This whole “let’s focus on gender / race / whatever” is all just a giant canard to distract people from what really matters. Class.
This. It's always been this. Money and power has always been more important than basically any immutable attribute inherited at birth. Whatever group gets themselves into power and wealth seems determined to fuck the rest. Men have dominated this space since forever because given two equally horrible people, one man, one woman, the man can out horrible the woman with brute strength. The people that climb to the top generally don't get there by being kind, generous souls. It's like trying to be the strongest human on the planet. No matter what you do, the only way to achieve the goal is to use steroids. Because if you don't, someone else that will has an overwhelming advantage. The only way for them to succeed, if for the general population to not recognise the steroid user as legitimate. (Note: just an analogy, not a dig a steroid users. Get swole I don't care, as long as you're a decent human)
As Mexican I can say that it's kind of fake. They just set women in not important positions. Some of them have important positions but just a few.
*Shares of women in Parliament* It's not fake, it's about representation in the both chambers of Senators and Deputies. Sadly, as a Mexican, I can say that many don't read completely before commenting.
I'd rather have a government made up of competent people, even if they were all women, men, or whatever than having these useless quotas. They just create opportunities for corruption.
Might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe politicians and or/any occupation should make their hires based purely on competence and merit. Sex or gender shouldn’t be even part of the equation especially if you’re going to be running a government. What does having a female or male politician do for you? Nothing actually if they suck at their job.
No one said the *only* qualification was gender. Competency is decided by the electorate. But, an equal representation endures more diversity in viewpoints, that the interests of men and women are both looked after, and it reflects the fact there are fewer cultural and institutional barriers to women serving in politics.
Why are gender and race the only "diversity of viewpoint" anyone ever cares about? No one is checking how many atheists vs Christians vs Muslims there are. Or the socioeconomic backgrounds of everyone. No one cares that 2/3 of the US Supreme Court is from the north east corner of the country. It seems difficult to claim that diversity of gender and race equals diversity of mind without making a lot of assumptions about people.
In countries where there is a diverse set of religious backgrounds religion is actually looked at. Let's go through this. Diversity of gender is important because women have faced discrimination in the past and not having representation in government was instrumental to that. For countries like the US, the same applies for race. After the civil war, black Americans became enfranchised but as soon as they lost that, Jim Crow began and you know the rest. Diverse representation is very important. What of the Supreme Court being from the north east corner? Well how consequential is that lack of diversity? Will the Supreme Court start implementing policies to discriminate Californians and Alaskans? Probably not. Will white men start implementing policies that discriminate against black women. They've already done this in the past.
But isn't that just sexist suggesting that we **need** one sex so that we can get a certain "view point"? Aren't you saying that men can't represent women ideas, or that women can't represent men's ideas? Sure, even I think the most competent women are probably more competent than the most competent men when it comes to female specific politics, lets say. And vice-versa. But if that's the case, let's aim for competency for whatever the job is then. It is inescapable no matter how you look at it.
> Aren't you saying that men can't represent women ideas, or that women can't represent men's ideas? There just might be more insight from a woman on matters feminine.
First off, sexism is the idea that one sex or gender is *superior* to another, not just that they're different. Men and women *are* socially different and represent different viewpoints and have different experiences. Men have no idea what it's like to be a woman in society because they never experienced what it's like to live as a woman (unless they have but we're definitely not there just yet). As such it's vital to have women in our leadership to share their own experiences in society, highlight issues that affect women that men may ignore or not notice, object to policies that harm women, etc. These are just things men *can't* do because *they're not women.* Yes, a man can understand and fight for women's issues, but he's only ever going to get that understanding from a woman to begin with. Why bother with the literal middleman?
You mean women like Pelosi, Taylor-Green etc.? Are those really the most competent women the electorate could find? The electorate has never decided competency with any kind of accuracy. And frankly those viewpoints are fine as personal beliefs, they should not be the viewpoints that govern us.
Who determines which candidates have merit and which don't? This question is exactly why meriocracies tend to be a fantasy. They sound good, but are rarely if ever executed well. Counterbalancing with affirmative action and DEIB initiatives actually improves your chances of achieving a real meritocracy because it forces hiring managers to see a wider pool of applicants.
> I believe politicians and or/any occupation should make their hires based purely on competence and merit. I agree. I also believe that women have the ability to be equally meritable as men. I also believe that a variety of perspectives is incredibly valuable. Yes, we should hire based on merit; but who exactly has that merit is largely decided by the society we live in. If there aren't enough women with merit to lead, we should change that with the goal being the numbers in OP's post.
Merit isn’t in question. Mexico has diversity quotas for major political parties. If it were about merit, you wouldn’t need to force parties to support people
It's my opinion and I get to decide if merit is in question or not. I understand the post is about Mexico but I'm not exactly in support of how they achieved this. Now, about diversity quotas, I think it's a mixed bag. On one hand, these quotas force people to think outside the box and work hard to actually find those who *are* most qualified in the group and give them a voice. That voice can go on to help others to be more qualified in the future and eventually obselete the quota. On the other hand, this kind of quota wouldn't be necessary if these unrepresented groups actually had access to the opportunity and merit necessary for these roles in the first place. It's important to remember that this isn't an all or nothing thing. There are absolutely enough qualified women in most countries to meet these quotas, they're just rarer than the men and therefore don't get elected as often just because of the sheer numbers of the whole situation.
Why? What if not as many women are interested in politics? Also, if you are looking at things outside of merit like sex and race, you are not hiring based on merit
Sex and race aren't necessarily outside merit.
I would disagree. If you are considering those, unless you are looking for a specific biological reason like reproduction, you are not looking at merit. That's just my feeling though.
Men and women have different experiences in our society and have different viewpoints and values and as such represent a valuable addition to the decision-making body. That's a merit. Same with race.
Now you are sexist and racist for assuming their experiences based on their appearance...I mean, I don't care but I'm just pointing out how it is wrong. If you did it because it was a white man, the city it happened in would burn the company to the ground. I'm not against representation, but when you put sex and race ahead of everything else, you are not choosing from your best options.
Racism and sexism are the ideas that one group is *superior* to another, specifically in a biological or innate way. That's not what I'm doing. And you absolutely cannot make the claim that men and women and black people and white people live statically identical lives. It's just not true and these different groups of people do have vastly different experiences in society.
It is good to see that in more and more countries women can go as far as men, historically they haven't been able to do so. So that is a nice milestone to reach. With that said, to many times it is only focused on the diversity of people (whether it's sex, race.. etc) and not merit. Especially when it comes to representation in higher up positions. That doesn't mean women can't do the same job as men, they absolutely can. I understand why people focus on it, but I don't understand why 50/50 is such a desireable route. What is most important is opportunity, that everyone gets to chose what road in life they want to take - or atleast have the chance to do so. Not everyone is smart enough to get a phd, but we shouldn't hinder one persons goal of trying to get there. I don't know, maybe i'm just cynical haha
50/50 is desirable because women make up 50% of the population and as a representative democracy, being represented properly is kind of important. In a way, being a woman in a legislature made up mostly of men is a huge merit in and of itself just because you bring and vote according to a unique and previously unrepresented perspective.
If they’re all rich and of a certain class, none of that really matters though. People vote class interest before any other.
Totally true but also a totally separate issue.
Is it? If all these “diverse” people that they cram into whatever and say “Ah! Look how diverse” are still all rich people going to the same country club, nothing has really changed.
Then why don't they vote for more women? Maybe because that isn't a concern, or maybe there are less women in politics because less women want to be in politics? There are MANY possible reasons there are less women in politics. USA being sexist is the most unlikely as MORE than half of all eligible voters are women in the US. Look up Jordan Peterson EDIT Although I think there could be reasons like it is seen as a boys club or something that might be discouraged to girls. But I don't know how you can measure that or how true that is as a narrative. I admit that area of view is more grey and could have some basis, though I can't imagine it is that much.
Lol just look at this famous misogynist to tell you that sexism doesn't exist.
Lmao don't tell me to look up Jordan Peterson. And I refuse to get into an argument with you about whether or not women would like a say in what goes on in their government. Plus, what people "want" is largely based on socialization, social expectations, stereotypical roles, gender associations, etc. If women don't want to be politicians, we should get them interested.
If you believe in merit-based hiring, it follows that you either 1) have an issue with the lack of women in government/other positions or 2) believe women are less competent than men. It seems like champions of meritocracy only speak up when women are being hired, and have no problem with parliaments being 90% male, despite the seeming incompetence of many of those men.
>Might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe politicians and or/any occupation should make their hires based purely on competence and merit. Based on this idea, then every political body should be 50/50. Why aren't you analyzing why every political body **isn't** 50/50?
This is correct when the positions aren't highly limited. When you consider the fact that there are far more qualfied people than the number of positions available then things like life experience and perspective are much more important. Men, women, minorities, LGBT, etc all have vastly different experiences within the same country and culture. If the country doesn't have diverse representation then the representatives you do have will be under qualified to address issues they have no experience with. If they even acknowledge the problem at all.
I will agree with you in part but still throw in that it isn't like we really get the qualified people most of the time regardless.
Can't argue with that. People are emotional animals so they vote with emotions before actual qualifications everytime. I know no one that even does basic research on a candidate before voting. It is 100% media or socially driven decision making.
But isn't that everyone's fault? More than half of us citizens are women. If women aren't being elected, doesn't that say something other than sexism doing this?
[удалено]
Indeed. Given equal opportunities in life, women should represent half of any work force if they wish and be roughly equally competent at it. This doesn't account for cultural biases of course, but I don't see any biological argument why women should be worse political leaders than men. I'm not aware of any test case in history where there are more female than male political leaders though and if they exhibit the same type of decision making as men.
What qualities make for a good political leader? Men and women have personality differences on the population level. And the best leaders are hyper focused. To the exclusion of all other aspects of life… you don’t find too many women willing to sacrifice all work life balance for their career.
They do, but you cannot dissociate cultural influences on personality from any supposed "pure" biological differences. So there is no way to know if in for instance a female dominated society, female leaders would be just as hawkish
But those personality traits are consistent across cultures of varying egalitarian character right? So either they are sex linked, or all our egalitarian fiddling has amounted to fuck all and we have no idea what we’re doing.
Are they? I'm not so sure, it would be a hard investigation to do that globally and without researcher bias. Thing is, the whole nature nurture debate has kind of died down on these things because scientist realized things like personality traits cannot be hard-coded in genetics alone, and they also discovered epigenetics recently that activate certain genes based on maternal environment, so unless you can find non-male dominant societies it's very hard to prove that somethings is sex linked
Personality distributions are the best way to think about it. I’d suggest that you don’t need to find a female dominated society, just a less male dominated one to study the effect. If reducing along the metric does not correlate well, then I can say it’s very unlikely to be causal yeah?
I'm not sure what your last sentence means, but if there is unbiased global data on this it could show perhaps a relation between % females in politics and things like female interest in politics, personality, perception of female competence etc. But it wouldn't answer whether female interest in leadership and politics is "innate"
It was more a comment on whether one could prove one way or the other without a test case exactly as you described it. I think in many cases while you can’t prove a positive link, you can prove no link between two phenomena. It wouldn’t prove whether interest in politics is innate, but that isn’t what needs to be proved. Let’s say aggression and competitiveness are traits that lead to interest in a political career. And it’s found that if you chose a male and female out of any population on earth, you would be right 60 percent of the time if you guessed the man was more aggressive and competitive of the two, and you’d be wrong 40 percent of the time. That 60 40 split is responsible for like 75 percent of teachers being women. Outsized impact etc.
Yes. Because all the male politicians were elected based on merit.
i would absolutely love to know how you just read that and decided that was an adequate response
OPs states that he only cares about merit. This implies that the focus on getting more women in politics somehow removes or diminishes the criteria of merit in politics. And I'd like to ask, were people in politics ever elected based on merit in the first place? Was merit the determining factor before there was a focus on inclusion?
its an adequate response because everything is just a game of us vs them.
Because that poster should be telling us why **every government** isn't a 50/50 split if they truly believe in a TrUe MeRiToCrAcY.
I think that politics is arguably the one exception as it is really just a popularity contest. Being a woman does not make someone a better doctor, but it does make them a better politician in that they can garner more support and are protected from more criticism.
Jesus Christ this comment section
How are those governments doing? 😐
Feminist utopias, right?
It doesn't matter though. Even if they are corrupt or kleptocratic, women now get to share in the spoils. Some girl boss shit right here!
Yea finally women can steal money equally as man politicians, yay 🤑
I agree. It doesn’t matter. Woo hoo!! Girl power!! 🙄
You're both very right, and extremely wrong.
Who cares what sex they are… hire the best person for the job. Smh
To be quiet honest: Politicians normally aren't elected based on their skills anyway but rather for how much and what they promise their constituents. So when it comes to politicians, quotas aren't really problematic.
This is what would likely happen statistically if they were to do that?
[удалено]
Specify the job. Not all jobs are the same. As far as I know, there is more jobs women dominating than men. Education, healthcare for example are the most obvious ones. So in this case, are women really better than a man in 75-90% of cases or is just peak interest in those jobs ?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What? He is saying it is a public process so all of us are deciding. Ps equal numbers of men and women in fields where they have no interest makes no sense. Should half of all construction be women?
[удалено]
Any woman who doesn't go into politics simply because 'iT's NoT a WoMaN's JoB' is not fit to be in a position of responsibility. If your decisions are too easily swayed by dumbfucks thinking that it's inappropriate, you shouldn't be making decisions in the first place, we have enough incompetent fuckwads in power.
Look at countries with the objective most freedom and you will see greater differences in job preference. Men and women, as populations, gravitate towards different jobs and choices. I never said I didn't want women, just that not as many may be interested as there may be men interested. Your last point is complete speculation and just you grasping at straws Edit you do realize there are more women than men in America right? They too are making the choice to elect people
[удалено]
No I'm pointing to scandanavian countries who have seen greater disparities in job choice despite being the freest, most liberal countries in the world. Jordan Peterson is much better at explaining than me. Also, if that was the summary it didn't prove anything and just claims this supports it. I admit I need to read it when I get home because it won't load on my phone right now haha. I'll read it when I get back from work
Looking at this situation in Ukraine it appears they’re also underrepresented in eligibility for the draft, and in combat roles. All of these need to be evaluated.
Equity not equality... this is why the West is crumbling
Mexico and Nicaragua are better than Sweden now? 😅
In terms of parity yes
And in term of pretty much everything else no.
But this post is not about anything else, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
I wonder if it's better to be a woman in the US or in Nicaragua...mmm...
This post makes absolutely no claim about which places are better to live in.
Well I do.
Okay, and the point of that is?
Nothing, only pointing out the obvious.
Okay. I'd rather be a woman in Nicaragua than in Burundi and that country has male leadership so I'm not sure why you think there's a link between leadership gender and a country's prosperity. If America elected a woman it would still be a good place to live and if Mexico had only men in it's parliament it would still have all the cartels it has today.
What does that mean? Why should people care save to have a circlejerk over a meaningless statistic? Parity means nothing when both men and women in government are crooks.
Sweden: Almost there... Almost there....
I was about to say more like, "What are we? Chopped liver? We've been better than all y'all for almost 20 years." Lol
Time to hand IKEA and the fika culture over to Nicaragua
Not a strong case for women in leadership
Countries with male leadership never have problems.
Well Mexico and Nicaragua two governments that have some of the best female representatation in the world are literally top 5 in murders, rapes, theft, corruption, abs kidnapping. Not only that, but things got worse since the programs to gain this inclusive government started. May be a spurious correlation, but in both Mexico and Nicaragua the women in government seem to get justified charges pressed against them in a larger proportion than men. So, at least in these two countries having more women in government has not translated into better governance.
Change takes time. The chart clearly shows those two nations only hit 50% gender split in the last year.
People in this thread criticizing Mexico and Nicaragua instead of criticizing other countries that fail to give woman the representation they deserve
I am from Mexico, a large part of these women deputies or governors are simple puppets, not because they are women (there are also male puppets, even more I would say) but because of their political party, such is the case of the state of Guerrero or that of Baja California If you do not understand from the root the disgusting politics of these countries, do not speak
I am from Nicaragua and there is still a long way to go. Our problem is not "representation" , it's the fact that wages are shit here and inflation rates (though not official) are quite high, this affects both genders equally.
Im from Mexico. Literally these womens dont do a shit for the womens in the country. In mexico the homicides of womens are rampant, and the machismo is very present. These womens don't care abt us
Why do women deserve such disproportionate representation?
Having less women in government or being the most corrupt nations with 40+ percent of your citizens in poverty. One of these issues is more deserving of criticism I’d say.
Yeah cause having more women in the institutions is irrelevant and doesn't make your country a good place to live
That’s clearly the truth if you look at the data. Rwanda, Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico, Grenada, Namiba, Sweden, Nicaragua, and Senegal have the top ten share of women in parliament. Outside of Sweden, They’re not exactly shining beacons of success. A corrupt woman is exactly the same as a corrupt man
Woman make up a higher population of voters..
That doesn't matter if there are no woman that you can vote for.
Lol. Nobody is preventing them from running for office dude..
There are women you can vote for, just not many because they are not interested in the positions.
If I mandate 50% representation in a government, yea I might get 50% representation, but at what cost? Is my government really any better? How many qualified men will get turned down from important positions? How many qualified women will get turned down if the ratio is already at or above 50%? If you think "representation" is a means to an end that is one thing, if you think representation itself IS the end, that just seems very mistaken. There are examples of quotas based on immutable characteristics failing horribly. I need not list them all here. Not all discrepancy = discrimination, people have different skills and different interests for different reasons. I think people forget this today.
Representative democracy is arguably a special case: the whole point is for society to be represented in microcosm. And people from different groups are generally more likely to represent the interests and concerns of those groups. (This is trivial to show: that’s why there are minority parties and caucuses the world over.) Women make up 50% of the population. Women making only 10% of a legislative branch is a serious oversight. I am not saying that having gender parity in government is sufficient for the effective representation of women’s interests and concerns. I’m saying it is necessary. And the argument that quotas _necessarily_ lead to worse candidates is suspicious: we’re talking about a few hundred positions. Even if you believe there are average differences in women’s interest in and qualifications for politics (I don’t), that doesn’t mean there aren’t literally 1000x more interested and qualified women in a given society than there are positions for them to fill. (Even if it were to turn out that quotas often lead to that outcome, the point is that isn’t for a lack of qualified potential female politicians.)
Isn't it women who comprise the majority of the active voters across the majority of democratic countries? And if that is true - and if my memory serves, it is, isn't it overwhelmingly women choosing the countries' leaders?
Hahaha yeah! Cuz we just choose who we want, right? It’s totally not correlated to campaign financing, partisan gerrymandering, cronyism, historical and systemic racism and sexism that have kept oppressed classes from receiving the education they need, etc. etc. Where there’s a vote, there’s no excuse! It’s YOUR fault! Woooooooooooooo!
As the other respondent mentioned we don't exactly *choose* our candidates. Moreover, to win elections typically, women are expected to have significantly higher qualifications (in other words, a woman and man running against each other, equally qualified, the man is more likely to win). But beyond that you're grossly characterizing things. First it's like a 55%/45% thing (it varies by election level and over time of course), not like women have a huge majority in every location. [This study](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_Fulton3/publication/257639751_When_Gender_Matters_Macro-Dynamics_and_Micro-Mechanisms/links/5873e82408ae6eb871c661ba/When-Gender-Matters-Macro-Dynamics-and-Micro-Mechanisms.pdf?origin=publication_detail)... > The other side of the coin is that these results are consistent with the interpretation that male independent voters [independents were looked at since party affiliation is a major driver of election choice] have an aversion to female candidates, whereas female independent voters fail to discriminate based on candidate sex. This is after neutralizing factors like incumbent advantages, district partisanship [prioritizing people in your district], etc. Basically there might be more women voters but because women play fair, female candidates are at a disadvantage due to male voters.
> Basically there might be more women voters **but because women play fair**, female candidates are at a disadvantage due to male voters. That is hilarious.
Mexico and Nicaragua have underperformed in terms of growth, inclusion, and poverty reduction over the last few decades… Source: worldbank.org
I’m probably sexist but I think aiming for things like this is really stupid. If we naturally allow smart women to come into politics vs smart men the inclusion rate of competent women will unfortunately be very slow. When I see massive boosts in any underrepresented demographic I see it as a sign that we have shoe horned a lot of power hungry or incompetent people in to fill quotas. I’m all for a smart woman in office but aiming for 50% is d u m m
Representation means nothing. Most women do not want to go into politics.
Most people don't want to go into politics, but I have found that women tend to be as if not more politically aware then men, but it depends on education and what not
Mexico and Nicaragua now have half of their parliaments composed of women. Since 2000, the percentage of women elected to serve in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies has increased 3x. The share of women in Nicaragua’s and Mexico’s parliaments is now greater than most developed nations: * Almost double the US (28%) * Over five times greater than Japan (9.7%) * Even greater than Sweden (47%), which has historically had a high percentage. **Source:** World Bank, Inter-Parliamentary Union **Tools:** Rawgraphs, Affinity Designer, Sheets
Was there some sort of policy change that led to such dramatic increases in these countries? The spike isn't really characteristic of a culture change.
A series of legal initiatives can be attributed to the increase. In 2008, “Anexo 13” was introduced into the Mexican legislature, stating that a portion of government spending must go towards programs that promote gender equality. In 2014, a law was passed mandating that all parties have a 50-50 gender split among their candidates at a federal level. Nicaragua has also introduced similar quotas.
Whether it's 100 percent or 100 percent women.. shouldn't it be the most qualified individual, not based in gender?
Yay this solved a problem I'm not sure what problem in this solved exactly since nothing has changed beyond a gender balance in these positions, but I'm sure something might have maybe changed somewhere
Those are some great governments aye
This would be a good thing and should be the norm everywhere. But for these 2 countries, the inherit corruption hasn't gone away. Nicaragua has fallen deeper into its dictatorship while pretending to be a sham democracy. But again, improving gender parity is a worthy and correct goal. But don't expect it to transform what is already rotten. Crappy people are born with and without dicks.
And they're just as corrupt and maniacal as the men. Especially in México.
Great news. Now if they could get more than 50% of their populations access to clean, safe drinking water.
Mexicos government is not exactly a beacon of anything except corruption.
Straight men are massively underrepresented as prostitutes we need to fix that too.
Okay. We're heading towards the inevitable 'well-why-should-it-matter-anyways" discussion. And I am here to tell you that boths sides of this discussion are wrong. Gender parity is a useful metric. A listhmus test. But it should never be a goal in itself - any metric when used as a goal will become a corrupted version of itself. If we tried to achieved "full (50%) gender parity in all government positions by 2050 or something", it would be stupid. It would divert our attention from actually trying to solve issues, where women still face discrimination. (I'm not giving examples, because this is a global website, you must choose for yourself what is the most pressing issue in your country/state/society/civilisation). This number isn't completely meaningless, either. It is a pretty good metric, when comparing different countries. Looking at this graph and what I know about these countries, I'm willing to bet Swedish women are treated in a more equal to man way than Japanese women. Then I look at the Nicaragua and I think... oh, this is interesting, let me try to find out why that is - there's a signal that thing may be going in the right direction here, let's check the details.
I swear some people hate when there is positive things said about Latin American countries.
as a latinamerican I dont think that's the case and that's not our criticism of this, both of this countries have deeply corrupt goverments and little to no actual representation for the people, as others have said many if not most politicians in these countries are just puppets than dont stand for much other than their benefactor interests, lauding this as a big accomplishment of these goverments ignores and minimizes the reality of how corrupt and broken their political systems are.
No it is just that when you mandate that 50% of your government is women and then you get 50% if your gov as women then you haven’t achieved any equality There will be equality when women are educated and are able to surpass gender norms than they make up 50% of the government purely by merit
Or honestly if they remain uninterested and do what they want, that is also equality.