Talk:Gender Development Index

International development Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Gender studies Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Comments

"Results of the GDI for 136 countries can be found in the UNDP's GDI report" the website that this citation is related to is no longer active.

I wish there were a link to the ranking.

How in the world did Qatar get ranked # 1... I am genuinely curious

POV in section "Biased feminist statistics"

I contend that this section is completely POV'd. In presenting an alleged bias on the GDI, it opposes to that perceived bias and is thus taking a stance and violating NPOV.

For instance:

It should be noted that the UN uses a different standard for male and female life expectancy, basically assuming that it is natural that women should live about 5 years longer than men.

NPOV in this section should discuss whether the different life expectancy assumption is actually biased or has factual root by looking e.g. at actual life expectancy rates through modern times in societies of various levels of development. Further discussion could be made of the incidence of the leading causes of death according to gender.

The assumptions used in the UN calculation reflect a feminist attitude that tries to portray women's situations as worse than they actually are

The current version presents itself as knowing, without the slightest support, what the feminine situation "actually is".

assume that gender disparities that benefit men are "sexist" but gender disparities that benefit women are "natural" or "normal".

For this to be true, the underlying assumption of the section editor's viewpoint would have to be proven true: that males and females "naturally have", or should be assumed to have, equal life expectancies - empirical evidence for which is desperately lacking in the article.

I leave it to the others to decide what should be done to the section. Amorim Parga (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "biased section" is not POV because it presents an alternative to the POV assumptions that underlie the way the GDI is calculated by the UN. It counts a 5 year life expectancy gap between men and women as being equal. Therefore, if a country has a 6 year gap in favor of women the UN would consider it to "favor women" while a 4 year gap in favor of women would be considered to "favor men." I'm simply pointing out that a gap that actually favors women should not be counted as favoring men. The comment above asks for proof that men and women should live equally long lives. I don't have exact proof that is the case but in 1900 (before the modern women's movement took off) the gap between men and women was only 1 year. The UN report assumes that the income gap that favors men is the result of discrimination without offering any proof that women have the same earning abilities as men. The point is that there isn't any more proof that women's advantages in life expectancy are "natural" than there is that men's advantages in average income are "natural." As for the contention about knowing what women's situation "actually is", I admit this was phrased poorly and I would welcome someone who could clean up the sentence without erasing all of the information. My point was that although the GDI is admittedly a blunt tool for assessing the relative situations of men and women, adjusting the life expectancy calulation to a non-biased formula produces a higher (more equal) score for women than using the biased calculation of the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.163.27 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the information has repeatedly been completely reverted, I've tried going through and getting rid of anything that could possibly be seen as POV and tried to give a consise summary of the problem with the way the UN calculates this. Hopefully if someone still has a problem they can tweak it instead of getting rid of the information completely. I would like to discuss why the UN calculates the GID the way it does because I believe it reflects a severe ideological bias but I'll wait for suggestions on how to do that in a consensus way. Good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.163.27 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user, I've again deleted your biased section. The point is, you contend to have "information", while there is none. The actual information regarding this issue is: on a given population where men and women have reasonably equal access to health care, women do live longer. As you pointed out: before women succeeded in their fight to be treated equally, their natural predisposition for living longer was hampered - and they lived only 1 year longer on average. The 5-year difference assumed by the UN might not be the best, but it certainly beats assuming equal life expectancies. Human development means each person being able to fulfill their natural tendencies to the most; this includes living as long as possible. And experience shows this to be longer for women. Please don't edit the article back until you have solid information on the contrary. Amorim Parga (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your solid information will have to explain the fact (source: www.ibge.gov.br , stats on projected future population) that, for Brazil, the 5-year difference assumption actually underestimates the life expectancy difference. This difference stands at 7.6 years (2009), and it is projected to be 7.3 in 2020, 6.3 in 2050 and 5.6 in 2100. By then, according to current projections, life expectancy growth will have practically stabilized. Amorim Parga (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more evidence that women's tendency to live longer is "natural" than there is that men's tendency to earn more money is "natural." The UN assumes that the 5 year gap is "natural" and it is not considered sexist. If the UN assumed that a 25% income gap between men and women were "natural" it would instantly be denounced as sexist. My point is simply that since the GDI is supposed to measure equality, it should use equal an unbiased statistics. You point out that the life expectancy gap is slowly closing in Brazil (and I assume elsewhere) as though the current gap doesn't matter because it is closing. The income gap between men and women is slowly closing but somehow I don't think you would say that that gap is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.161.224 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes to Page

Although the previous author may have a valid point in asserting that the GDI is infact gender-biased, I think this discussion could actually be a worthwhile addition to the page itself, making others aware that such debates over this measurement apparatus exist. In keeping with that theme, I would like to propose the addition of a number of new sections to this page, including History and Origins of the GDI, Factors and Calculation of the GDI, Critical Assesments and Debates regarding the GDI and Proposed Alternatives and Alterations to the GDI. I would also like to link this page to other relevant pages including the Capabilities Approach, the Gender Empowerment Measure, and the Human Development Index.FaithSara (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]