Where Is It Best to Be a Woman? Not the U.S.

October 18, 2010 12:00 pm     Posted in Reality  Avery - UNC Chapel Hill g+ page

I’ve never been overly patriotic. There are no American flags hanging in my room and even if I had snagged the athletic gene in my family, I still wouldn’t wake up at 5 am twice a week for ROTC. I don’t believe like some that the U.S. is “the best country in the world,” yet I’ve always felt that as an American, I am offered more freedoms and opportunities than almost any other country’s citizens.


By Avery

So, I was surprised by the news this week that America ranks nineteenth in gender equality. In other words, based on factors including salary equality, education, political representation and life expectancy, the Global Gender Gap Report determined that women in eighteen countries come out ahead of us American females.

I was disappointed, but maybe I should have been happy- nineteen is a big improvement from 31st last year, and 27th the year before.

Nineteenth out of 134 countries really isn’t terrible…but it isn’t exactly wonderful either. In a high school graduating class, the land of the free and the home of the brave wouldn’t have even received Honors. Iceland would be the valedictorian of woman’s equality, but I don’t suggest a mass exodus of down-stuffed-parka-wearing women to the Nordic country. (I spent one shivering winter in Chicago and that was enough for me.) Even there, women don’t have it as great as men.

Many left dateless on the 60:40 male to female campuses won’t be surprised that the U.S. is one of twenty-two countries that offers equal education attainment for men and women. America is also near the top of economic participation and opportunity (number 6), an encouraging find as we graduate and join the workforce. In fact, in the U.S., women are ahead of men as professional and technical workers.

What screws us over, then, is the subindex category “political empowerment.” Now I know we’ve never had a female president, but there are women politicians out there. Look at our Secretary of State! And all those Congresswomen, like Olympia Snowe! And Barbara Boxer! And…  others? (I’m realizing now how many more male than female politicians I can name.)

America is 40th in this category, after some countries not particularly known for their human rights, like Argentina, Cuba and Uganda. We’ll never improve our equality ranking if we keep electing so many more male than female politicians. Beyond the obvious gender gap this creates, there’s also the issue that policy concerning women’s right will be drafted, debated and passed by a testosterone driven government. We don’t get to make the rules that concern us.

I think the best way to kick Iceland off it’s glacial throne is by supporting as many female candidates as we can, even if they’re not running in our districts, and maybe even running for office ourselves one day.

What do you think? How can we decrease the gender gap in America?

7 Comments on "Where Is It Best to Be a Woman? Not the U.S."

  1. Izzy says:
    Tue, 19th Oct 20104:26 am 

    It's not right to support a candidate just because she's female. That's as sexist as men supporting a male candidate just because he's male. We should vote for the candidate whose beliefs most closely align with our own.

  2. L says:
    Tue, 19th Oct 20107:56 am 

    @Izzy- I don't think (or at least I hope) that the author meant it the way you're interpreting it. I think she just means we should be supportive of the idea of women as candidates, not that we should just support them because they are women. Female candidates are ripped apart far more than there male counterparts. Hillary Clinton for example was criticized for seeming too cold, but when she teared up for a moment she was attacked for being too sensitive. It's really sad that the US gloats about its democracy and yet it's 19th on the list.

  3. Kelsey says:
    Tue, 19th Oct 20107:59 am 

    I agree with Izzy, I'm not about to support someone whose platform I don't agree with just because of their gender. I really think that idea holds us back if anything, making us look ignorant or unable to form our own ideals.

  4. AC says:
    Tue, 19th Oct 20108:22 am 

    No, I agree with the previous 2 comments. It's not right, or smart to vote for someone, hire someone, or accept someone based on a trait that they did not choose (gender, race, sexuality) These traits should not even be looked at in the decision to elect/ hire/ or accept someone.

    A persons QUALIFICATIONS, and personal stance should be the only determinants in cases like this. PERIOD! Do you want an under qualified doctor because they're not Caucasian? Or do you want to have to do a group project with a moron student who only got accepted to your school because they were not straight? or would you want someone in office who has no idea what they're doing or doesn't share your views simply because they are not a male?

    Look at the 3 common factors in those three examples, the word NOT. Affirmative action exemplifies people for what they're NOT, not what they are, and it doesn't make them any more equal, it just puts everyone at a disadvantage adds needless politics, and complicates an issue that really isn't that complicated.

    You want to reach equality? Or find out who, if anyone, is REALLY better (which I think is probably why this hasn't been done yet) get rid of the "Gender" "Race" "Sexual Orientation" questions on applications. These factors should not matter, AT ALL. They should not be determining factors in any case. Peoples acceptance should be determined by their qualifications and achievements alone, things that they have control over in their own lives, not things they don't, and things that don't matter.

    Affirmative action only leads to a larger gap, and more separation between groups. Stop focusing/ putting emphasis on gender, race, and sexuality, and these things might just finally disappear.

    I don't care if a candidate is a woman, if she's not right for the job, I'm not voting for her/ hiring her. If the best candidate for the job happens to be a woman, HELL YEAH! let's get her in there. See the difference? The importance lies on their qualifications, not their gender.

  5. Anne says:
    Tue, 19th Oct 20108:40 am 

    I agree with the above two comments. Something as important as politics should not be chosen by looking at something like sex. It is just as ignorant and closed minded and choosing to vote for someone because they are male, black, white, good looking ect. At the end of the day, it is what they think that matters, and that is how voting should be decided.

    On the matter of a female president. Those female politicians have to RUN in order to get elected, and very few chose to do so. And I refuse to believe that someone like Hilary Clinton lost simply because she was a female. I would like to think she lost because she was not the best candidate.

  6. Avery - UNC Chapel H says:
    Tue, 19th Oct 20102:23 pm 

    I'm glad I initiated such debate!

    I didn't mean to suggest that we should vote for female candidates just because they are female. I agree with all the comments above mine… If the white, protestant, male candidate is the one you agree with the most, he is who I think you should vote for. Obviously, his opinions, life history, mannerisms, political record and experience are much better indicators of what kind of politician he'll be than his skin color or gender.

    L, you really got at the point I meant to make. When I said support, I didn't necessarily mean vote for. Instead, I meant we should support women as they run in the election. We shouldn't permit the sexist rhetoric (like the Clinton example) that is commonplace during elections, even if we don't plan to vote for the woman.

    In the current races, candidates like Meg Whitman, Christine O'Donnell and Krystal Ball (if you don't know her story, google it- it's really interesting) have faced additional challenges, like name calling. The example that comes to mind is when one of the aides of Whitman's opponent referred to her as a whore.

    If more females run for office, I think this will become less common. Also, the odds of agreeing with the one woman out of the six politicians in a primary are not great… When more women run, more will be elected- that's just how it works.

    On second thought… my ideas really could have used further explanation. Thanks for continuing the discussion!

Tell us what you're thinking...