Thursday, August 20, 2009


The NY Times has an article titled Woman's Crusade, which makes the case that:

In a large slice of the world, girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it's not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and riven by fundamentalism and chaos. There's a growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to the U.S. Military's Joint Chief of Staffs to aid organizations like CARE that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight poverty and extremism.
And you may think of woman being marginalized as being paid less than their male counter-parts, but in other parts of the world it is much more extreme.
Sen noted that in normal circumstances, women live longer than men, and so there are more females than males in much of the world. Yet in places where girls have a deeply unequal status, they vanish. China has 107 males for every 100 females in its overall population (and an even greater disproportion among newborns), and India has 108. The implication of the sex ratios, Sen later found, is that about 107 million females are missing from the globe today.
The global statistics on the abuse of girls are numbing. It appears that more girls and women are now missing from the planet, precisely because they are female, than men were killed on the battlefield in all the wars of the 20th century. The number of victims of this routine “gendercide” far exceeds the number of people who were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.

Source: Scaruffi


  1. You might get a few bites, Mr. Anonymous, but next time, put in a bit more effort. 2/10.

  2. This girls-are-disadvantaged stuff made sense in the 1950s, but it's complete nonsense now. Walk into any company, any university, any hospital, any government office and you will see *more* women in managerial roles than men. Women who take time off to raise kids are going to have their salary reduced. The idea that someone can take three years off from work to raise kids without taking a hit on salary is ridiculous.

  3. I love your data but I thought this was just too classic to not mention:

    "Rather than the hard data that goes into a spreadsheet, informal indicators can sometimes hint at trends before the "official data" comes out. Jim Rogers noted on one of his around-the-world trips that he preferred information from taxi drivers and prostitutes as opposed to government officials." Jim Rogers

  4. Maybe the opportunities are there in certain parts of the US for a woman to have the same opportunity as a male counterpart, but to say that is a thing of the past globally (or even throughout the entire US) is ignorant. One wild stat is woman own 1% of all land throughout the globe (not so equal). The simple fact that so many woman are "missing" (whether due to lack of healthcare, single child laws, etc...) blew my mind and I wanted to direct readers to the full article.

    Did this post do the best in providing a full explanation? Of course and obviously not, but it hopefully directed my readers to a situation to which they likely were unaware.

  5. Applause first for your assembling this data and then crumbs for your copy and paste comments on such a critical issue.

    My audience is very receptive to any of your stats on women's issues, particularly horrific facts as critical as these.

    Any chance you have a clearer slide of your data? Even the original is fine. I can make a jpg. I would love to post it at, where we're tracking honor killings. I will change term now to 'gendercide', which is better. You can contact me in masthead contact Anne box.

    Thanks for assembling this analysis. We'll post and credit you with any charts you want to share on women's issues. Anne

  6. "crumbs for your copy and paste comments"

    not sure what that means.

    that said, if you're looking for the data behind the chart, click through the link at the bottom of the post.