WEF Ranking of Gender Equality- Muslim and Arab States Lag Behind

The November 26th edition of Time magazine featured a chart from the World Economic Forum, ranking countries on the basis of gender equality. They measured the countries based on educational achievement, economic participation and opportunity, political empowerment, and health and survival. The Organization of the Islamic Conference member state with the best ranking is Kazakhstan, at 32. The United States is ranked 31, and Israel 36. Not surprisingly, the highest (best) ranking Arab League member state  is  at 96 (Kuwait).

The bottom of the list is a who’s who of Arab and Muslim nations (Arab League states in italics).

128- Yemen
127- Chad
126- Pakistan
125- Nepal
124- Saudi Arabia
123- Benin
122- Morocco
121- Turkey
120- Egypt
119- Oman
118- Iran
117- Burkina Faso
116- Cameroon
115- Bahrain
114- India
113- Ethiopia
112- Mali
111- Mauritania
110- Angola
109- Qatar
108- Algeria
107- Nigeria
106- Guatemala
105- United Arab Emirates
104- Jordan
103- Syria
102- Tunisia
101- Zambia
100- Bangladesh
99- Maldives
98- Cambodia
97- South Korea
96- Kuwait

Barring half of their population from contributing to scientific, social, and economic progress has infinitely more to do with these countries’ languishing behind much of the world than does the nefarious influence of the Zionists or America. Of course, the rules of Arab honor/shame culture forbid them from admitting  and remedying this reality.

8 Responses to WEF Ranking of Gender Equality- Muslim and Arab States Lag Behind

  1. Vilmos says:

    > Barring half of their population from contributing
    > to scientific, social, and economic progress has
    > infinitely more to do with these countries’
    > languishing behind much of the world

    I don’t know, but I feel more and more that we are getting all of these things wrong. For a good intro, read this: http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/12/some-of-things-i-believe-but-cannot.html

    TigerHawk’s main point is that we are using the wrong metrics to measure the success of a society. We are using, for example, things like child mortality, literacy, elimination of diseases, etc. I would add to the list of things like the status of women, gay rights, abortion, etc. The usual bs.

    Mark Steyn has an excerpt from his book at Maclean’s, which talks about the demography. He also had a good article, titled “It’s the demography, stupid” which is only accessible in the wayback machine. He also write once, and I agree, that the median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.9 years (or something like that). Any other statistics beside this is only secondary. He also talks about in his latest column about the child hostility on some western circles (enviros). Like paying child levy after each birth, since the child will be a polluter, and families should also pay $800 (both Aussie dollars) of carbon tax after each children. Just think about these issues…

    In my opinion, there is only one measure of a successful society. Does it recreate itself? In this metric, all the western societies (sans the US, but only barely) fail miserably.

    If a society – whatever successful in science, economy, the arts, justice, – doesn’t recreate itself, is, by definition, failing. On the other hand, any society which grows (or at least keeps the numbers), is succeeding. I explicitly don’t say that, according to this measure, a successful society is just or good to live in. But it does recreate itself, and with time, will take over those self-obsessed societies, like the West.

    What is the use of the low child mortality if there are no children? Which is better? To have 1.2 children per woman, with a mortality rate of 1%, or to have 4.7 children, with a mortality rate of 20%? Which society *WILL* survive?

    We definitely have a more just and economically as well as scientifically more advanced society than the Arab world. But again, what is the use of all of these achievements, if we don’t have children? We are living for the present. They are living for the future. They will win. As Mark Steyn says, in a demographic war, the one will win which has the last man standing.

    Some good numbers:
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2002.html

    Vilmos

  2. fp says:

    Are you saying that reproduction is the ONLY measure of societal success? If, for example, the islamist win the reproduction game but set the world back to the seventh century barbarism, will that be societal success?

    Yes, they will probably win the reproduction game. But the kind of life they will impose will not be a success in my book.

    The barbarians won over rome, but ultimately it’s the roman civilization which is the source of the current west, not the barbarian culture.

    I would say reproduction is a necessary but insufficient condition of societal success.

    fp
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  3. Vilmos says:

    To fp:

    > Are you saying that reproduction is the
    > ONLY measure of societal success?

    I feel more and more that yes, this is the only thing which counts in the long run.

    > If, for example, the islamist win the
    > reproduction game but set the world back
    > to the seventh century barbarism, will that
    > be societal success?

    Yes. Because their society DOES survive, and ours DOES NOT. I am viewing this from the standpoint of our society.

    > Yes, they will probably win the reproduction game.

    I have the same feeling.

    > But the kind of life they will impose will not be
    > a success in my book.

    This was part of my original comment:

    me> I explicitly don’t say that, according to this
    me> measure, a successful society is just or good
    me> to live in.

    For a long time, (well, upto maybe 3-4 years ago), I had the same opinion. But seeing the big picture, I realized that I had measured success with the wrong device. Tigerhawk’s post was really good at giving additional insights into this topic.

    For a long time, I (and almost everybody else still) confused livability with survival. I started to redefine success on survival. This is why I came to this conclusion that their society is succeeding, and ours is failing.

    > But the kind of life they will impose will not be
    > a success in my book.

    Neither it is a success in my opinion, when I form my opinion based on *MY* own living and standards. But if I base my opinion upon the *SURVIVAL* of our society, then they are winning over us big time.

    > The barbarians won over rome, but ultimately
    > it’s the roman civilization which is the
    > source of the current west, not the barbarian
    > culture.

    I guess the keyword is “current”. Wait one century…, and Europe has a good chance of reverting to the barbarians.

    > I would say reproduction is a necessary but
    > insufficient condition of societal success.

    The main distinction between your and my view is the difference between livability and survival.

    Vilmos

  4. fp says:

    I understand what you are saying, but I think you fall into the very trap you deplore.

    Once you start defining success as survival using a criterion that does not distinguish between barbarism and civilization, you’ve already contributed to their survival and our demise. In fact, this is one of the main problem with the civilized society: it refuses to do what’s necessary to survive in livability, fooling itself that it can either appease or ignore the barbarians drive to kill the source of evidence that barbarism is an utter societal failure (and envy thereof).

    I very much doubt that I would have great interest in surviving in a barbarian society, for somebody who has experienced civilization to go back to that would be tantamount to suicide, mental and physical. which is what the west is committing.

    the barbarism that will win this time is NOT the same barbarism that won over rome. they have similarities, but also distinction. the process is very similar though.

    however, it was the barbarians who got civilized that survived and flourished, those who did not died. and my guess is that the same will happen with the new ones. for if they insist on living in the 7th century and not evolve, darwin says they’ll die out. and, in fact, had they not had access to the fruits of civilization — the one they wanna destroy — they would be dead already. it’s the civilized world that’s saving their butt. that’s the tragedy of it.

  5. fp says:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019210.php

    see what I mean? otoh, we tend to tend to health and risks to the planet (even if we exaggerate them). their concern is to wipe us out. so if they succeed, who exactly will address the pandemic and planetary problems — allah?

    are you reading about withholding medical treatment from the ill because it’s not the islamic way? give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves. the problem is we do the opposite.

    i keep saying: they don’t win, we lose.

  6. fp says:

    and more:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/postopinion/editorials/canadas_thought_police_72483.htm

    to be honest, I have come to a conclusion harsher than yours: i don’t think that such a “civilization” deserves to survive!!! might be better that it should die, and give the barbarians a chance to commit suicide and at least the earth and the other species will survive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>