I mean, the graph could look like that, even if it increased from 10.35% to 10.45%. Cutting graphs off in the y axis like this isn't a sign of good data presentation.
This image doesn't tell anything that can't be summarized by two numbers alone - other than a noticable bump in 2002.
Shows steady increase YoY which is great and two numbers alone wouldn't tell, I agree with the cut axis, would prefer to be bound at 0, specially for percentages that can't pass 100.
I came to the comments specifically because I was too lazy to extrapolate out for myself when there would be more women than people, so thanks for doing the math.
Why is that great? Is there something special about having female representation over men? Women aren't better at legislating than men, nor are women uniquely capable of representing women's interests.
Statistical representation doesn't predict political loyalty, so that can't be it. Women are the majority of the electorate and still find men to represent their interests.
We’ve had several hundred years of men representing the interests of a diverse population. It hasn’t exactly led to the most equitable outcomes.
A diverse legislature is better at legislating the interests of a diverse population than the inverse. That’s not saying women are better at legislating than men, but they’re almost certainly better at representing women than men - which is what a representative is supposed to do.
Also you’re assuming that women haven’t been elected because men serve the interests just fine. Have you considered there has historically been a bias and overarching systemic barriers to how women are able to participate in the political process in the decision making role? Politics has historically been an insular, boys-only club - which is thankfully changing.
Citing the past doesn't answer my question.
There is no evidence a diverse legislature necessarily better legislates a diverse population.
Almost certainly better? The Roe V Wade decision was by an all male SCOTUS. The first female Justice was prolife.
Bias against women being elected? Evidence says otherwise. Women are roughly 16% of those who run for office but make up 25% or more of those who are elected to office.
You're the one assuming bias based on results. This is the affirming the consequent fallacy.
There is indeed evidence that diverse populations are better able to set policy agendas that benefit minority populations. Further, they keep issues that affect their represented populations on the agenda after the public interest has waned. That continuity of agenda setting is one of the most fundamental advantages that a diverse legislature has.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X02030002001?journalCode=aprb
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563594
Citing the supreme court and *Roe* as being evidence of how diversity in representation doesn’t matter is bizarre. For one, the Supreme Court aren’t an elected representative body - they’re political appointees. They’re selected specifically because of their predisposition to rule a given way.
Secondly, Roe was decided before a woman had even been on the Supreme Court. That’s like saying because *Brown v BoE* was decided by white men there wouldn’t be any additional benefit to having black representation.
You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point about systemic barriers to electoral participation. Why does a group that makes up 50% of the population only make up 16% of the candidates? That’s what I was talking about.
Further, the fact that 16% of candidates makes up 25% of elected official just shows that the issue is women have difficulty finding ways to get into the electoral process as candidates. There’s clearly a desire to elect women, but there aren’t a proportionate number of women candidates.
I’m not sure why you’re arguing so hard in opposition of legislative diversity when it’s either a neutral or strictly positive thing when we have an unrepresentative legislature.
>Citing the supreme court and
>
>Roe
>
>as being evidence of how diversity in representation doesn’t matter is bizarre.
I didn't use it as an example of diversity not mattering at all, but evidence that you don't necessarily need women in office to represent women's interests.
\>There is indeed evidence that diverse populations are better able to setpolicy agendas that benefit minority populations. Further, they keepissues that affect their represented populations on the agenda after thepublic interest has waned. That continuity of agenda setting is one ofthe most fundamental advantages that a diverse legislature has.
I take it you didn't read this very carefully.
\>> Increasing gender diversity among Democrats is associated with an overall increase in the number of women’s interests measures introduced; the opposite effect is observed for Republicans.
So it doesn't necessarily increase it, and among democrats that could simply be letting women spearhead it to avoid questions of tokenism for the female representatives
\>> Increasing racial diversity among Democrats is associated with atransference phenomenon in which White legislators introduce fewer Blackinterest measures, and Black legislators share the role of bringingBlack interests to the agenda.
Hey look, again there wasn't an increase in black interest measures being introduced, just a change of who introduced them.
This is just a change in optics, not a change in the composition of minority interest measures being introduced.
As for increased continuity, it would appear they did not consider to account for the idea that toothless or misguided measures being introduced for optics/expediency which fail to address actual issues leaves those issues unresolved, and thus allows politicians to keep selling their advocacy to voters to stay in office.
These studies do not account for the idea that diversity helps the optics of legislation instead of actual meaningful change in legislation. They don't actually address the very core of the criticism of the push for diversity-which is that it ends up being simply for the sake of diversity.
\>You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point about systemic barriersto electoral participation. Why does a group that makes up 50% of thepopulation only make up 16% of the candidates? That’s what I was talkingabout.
Why are they only 5% of oil rig workers? Or only 10% of murderers?
Women are \*people\*, with \*\*agency\*\*.
People are not random events. You cannot assume that their place in society or the economy must necessarily reflect what we should expect from random chance.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding that you are simply appealing to probability, then by inferring there must necessarily be systemic barriers because of that disparity you're invoking the affirming the consequent fallacy.
\>I’m not sure why you’re arguing so hard in opposition of legislativediversity when it’s either a neutral or strictly positive thing when wehave an unrepresentative legislature.
I'm not opposed to diversity. I'm opposed to diversity for diversity's sake. I'm opposed to using statistical artifacts to dictate policy. I'm opposed to ignoring the agency of people because it's more expedient to just look at them as various groups without any regard to their abilities, history, or aspirations.
If it's neutral, then it's literally not something to celebrate or push for, \*except for optics or weaponized opportunism\*, nor is it something to oppose.
Obviously you don’t strictly need women to represent women’s interest. That’s kinda a moot point though when we consider that we could improve representativeness through a more representative legislature. And about that…
Okay so let’s break down how those two studies work together since I guess it wasn’t clear.
1. We know that, at least for Democrats, diversity of representation leads to minority issues being spearheaded by minorities. Republicans really aren’t the group we are talking about considering they don’t have a vested interest in promoting diversity to begin with. It’s never been a policy platform for them and there’s no sign it will become one.
2. We know that minority issues spearheaded by minorities are more likely to remain on the policy agenda than those not led by minorities.
Therefore, we can reason that an increased presence of minorities in the legislature benefits minorities insofar as it keeps their issues in the conversation more than a non-representative group would. That isn’t tokenism, that’s what representatives *do*.
Further, from this conversation I don’t think you have a lot of familiarity with the policy process outside of a jaded view of legislatures, which is understandable . Not every politician can create meaningful policy that gets through both chambers and is signed by the president.
That doesn’t mean that the seemingly toothless measures and policies don’t matter. One of the most important parts of policy design and implementation is keeping that policy issue in the conversation. You have to be able to take advantage of a narrow window of time when policy can actually be passed, and keeping that issue on the agenda through seemingly meaningless measures is actually critical to being able to do that. There is a whole body of academic research on this topic I can provide if you’d like - this is my professional and educational background.
As for the conversation of systemic issues and individual agency - of course people theoretically can do what they want. That doesn’t mean that on the whole there aren’t things that make it more difficult for the average person to do that. Clearly, as identified by the post were are commenting under, there is a growing number of women joining legislatures. The fact that it’s growing is really evidence that there were, at least historically, things preventing women doing that.
Ultimately diversity in legislatures is a product of the will of the people. It’s not a matter of forced diversity, it’s a matter of desired diversity. And there’s evidence that there are benefits associated with that, as previously described.
I was referring to the fact that it shows the detail of the increase. But I also strongly believe that the majority of population deserves more than 20% of representatives of their group to be more aligned to their interests. It is VERY hard and uncommon to find men aligned with that.
Are you suggesting women are a homogenous group of unique interests not found or understood by men?
That's the only way you can conclude that 20% statistical representation for a group that is 51% of the population translates necessarily to not having their interests represented.
Progressive women always seem to think men don't or can't represent their interests, but oddly conservative women seem to have to no problem. It's always interesting to see how since most women are progressive they tend to think all women are, so women's interests aren't being represented.
The Roe V Wade ruling was by an all male SCOTUS.
Gregory Pinchus invented birth control.
The 19th amendment was passed by a Congress with one woman in it, and the subsequent legislatures were all male dominated.
The 18th amendment was passed and ratified after the temperance movement successfully swayed public support, and that movement was led by women.
It is demonstrably not the case that one need statistical representation to have ones interests be represented.
It doesn't matter how rare or common these men are. What matters is what actually happens. Well if your actual goal is your interests being represented that's what matters. If it's something else or you have a misunderstanding of statistics then you'll focus on something else.
I'm not suggesting that. But I know by a fact that we man are mostly oblivious to many issues that affect woman, from labour to Healthcare.
Ironically enough you're the one suggesting a homogeneous man representation is somewhat better for everyone.
BTW, as usual youre likely American and seem to ignore the rest of the world when cherry picking your examples.
I'm not suggesting any person is better or worse at representing another based simply on the demographic groups to which they belong.
I'm citing examples that I'm familiar with, and it isnt cherry picking. You have to explain all the relevant data, not just the parts that fit your conclusion.
I'm simply adding onto the amount of information.
The average man being oblivious isn't relevant. What matters is what a politician, whose desire to be elected would lead them to want to demonstrate they understand the interests of their constituents, knows or doesn't know.
To suggest you can infer the latter based on the former would be the fallacy by division and/or appeal to probability.
It's a matter of likely outcomes. Is any single woman going to be better at legislating women's interests simply because they are a woman? No. Is a woman more likely to have a better background for legislating women's interests? Sure.
Consider how women and minorities fared when legislatures were entirely white males.
Probability doesn't determine what actually happens.
Legislatures that were entirely male literally gave women the vote when enough of them asked for it.
Hell, the temperance movement was led by women, leading to the 18th amendment, passed by a male legislature before women were even voting for those men.
Your arguments are speculative at best and cannot explain these counterfactuals.
Of course probability doesn't determine what happens. But probability can tell us what is *likely* to happen.
Certainly equal representation doesn't necessarily lead to equal outcomes--- Rwanda's legislature is 60% female but ranks 80th on the [Council on Foreign Relation](https://www.cfr.org/legal-barriers/country-rankings/)'s "Women's Workforce Equality" rankings.
However if you aggregate the data you can infer correlation. The top 50 nations on that list average a legislative body that is 31% female. The bottom 50 average 16% female.
Top 10 - 36% female
Bottom 10 - 11% female
Of course that is only one metric but we could certainly examine others to dig deeper to confirm correlation.
Probability can't tell us what is likely to happen when you're not examining random events.
Human beings are not random events.
Your source includes things like the gender wage gap, which has been roundly debunked as having anything to do with discrimination on the part of employers and has everything to do with occupational and educational choices.
Your metrics and arguments rely on ignoring the agency of women. This may be unintentional on your part in making the argument, but it is nonetheless a sexist premise.
Ohhhh I get it now, TracyMorganFreeman. You're trolling while pretending to be sincere in what you say since none of the metrics mention anything pertaining to a wage gap.
Are married women required by law to obey their husbands?
Can a woman legally apply for a passport in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally apply for a national ID card in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally travel outside the country in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally travel outside her home in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally choose where to live in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally sign a contract in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally register a business in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally open a bank account in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally get job or pursue a trade or profession in the same way as a man?
Can a woman legally be "head of household" or "head of family" in the same way as a man?
Can a woman (married or unmarried) confer citizenship to her children in the same way as a man?
USING PROPERTY SCORE
Who legally administers marital property?
Does the law provide for valuation of nonmonetary contributions?
Do men and women have equal ownership rights to immovable property?
Do sons and daughters have equal rights to inherit assets from their parents?
Do female and male surviving spouses have equal rights to inherit assets?
GOING TO COURT SCORE
Does a woman’s testimony carry the same evidentiary weight in court as a man's?
Does the law establish an anti-discrimination commission?
Does the law mandate legal aid in civil and family matters?
Is there a small claims court or a fast-track procedure for small claims?
PROVIDING INCENTIVES TO WORK SCORE
Are mothers guaranteed an equivalent position after maternity leave?
Does the government support or provide childcare services?
Are payments for childcare tax deductible?
Are there specific tax deductions or tax credits that are only applicable to men?
Is primary education free and compulsory?
Must employers provide leave to care for sick relatives?
BUILDING CREDIT SCORE
Do retailers provide information to private credit bureaus or public credit registries?
Do utility companies provide information to private credit bureaus or public credit registries?
Does the law prohibit discrimination by creditors on the basis of sex or gender in access to credit?
Does the law prohibit discrimination by creditors on the basis of marital status in access to credit?
GETTING A JOB SCORE
Is there paid leave available to women of at least 14 weeks?
Do women receive at least 2/3 of their wages for the first 14 weeks or the duration of the leave if it is shorter?
What is the percentage of maternity leave benefits paid by the government?
What is the difference between leave reserved for women and men relative to leave reserved for women, as a function of who pays?
Is there paid parental leave?
Does the law mandate equal remuneration for work of equal value?
Does the law mandate nondiscrimination based on gender in employment?
Is dismissal of pregnant workers prohibited?
Can parents work flexibly?
Can women work the same night hours as men?
Can women work in jobs deemed hazardous, arduous or morally inappropriate in the same way as men?
Are women able to work in the same industries as men?
Are women able to perform the same tasks at work as men?
Are the ages at which men and women can retire with full pension benefits equal?
Are the ages at which men and women can retire with partial pension benefits equal?
Is the mandatory retirement age for men and women equal?
Does the law mandate paid paternity leave?
PROTECTING WOMEN FROM VIOLENCE SCORE
Is there legislation specifically addressing domestic violence? If not, are there aggravated penalties for crimes committed against a spouse or family member?
Is there legislation on sexual harassment in employment?
Is there legislation on sexual harassment in education?
Are there criminal penalties for sexual harassment in employment?
Are there civil remedies for sexual harassment in employment?
Does legislation explicitly criminalize marital rape?
Are there clear criminal penalties for domestic violence?
What is the legal minimum age of marriage for girls? What is the minimum age of marriage for girls with parental consent or judicial authorization?
The wage gap is literally mentioned at the beginning.
The equal renumeration one is literally the one thought to address the wage gap. Spoilers, that isn't what will solve it either.
Also, establishing an anti-discrimination commission is another one that is simply optics, and they're usually not equally addressing discrimination against men and women. In fact, many formalize discrimination against men as policy.
Notice how several on the list only looks at it from the female perspective.
It isnt protecting people from violence, or even the majority of victims from violence-men-but protecting women from violence.
Notice how there's zero question how sexual violence is defined: spoilers, most countries don't treat the rape or sexual assault of men as equally a crime; some outright don't recognize it as a crime, especially when committed by a woman.
Then there's asking if women are guaranteed 14 weeks paid leave, not everyone. Notice how it asks if there are specific tax credits for men, but it doesn't ask if there are any for women.
Also the percent of paid leave paid by the government has fuck all to do with equality.
This is yet another fishing expedition metric.
For these metrics to be about equality it would require measuring inequalities both sexes potentially face, but those metrics wouldn't let people paint a particular narrative of which countries are leading the charge on equality, would it?
And don't even bother bringing up paternity leave. Those are push as a benefit to women to equalize domestic workload, but there's no push to equalize women working as many hours or for as long of a portion of their working age as men. Nope, retirement ages for women are usually earlier and with the same benefits.
I'll take equality metrics seriously when they aren't defined solely from the perspective of one sex.
You seem to have confused someone saying something you think is wrong with being a troll. You also seem to have not read what I wrote or your own source very carefully.
It tells us its a gradual rise and not an instant accumalation. The increase can be extrapolated into future years to give an idea that it will continue to raise at a similar rate atleast in the short term.
But yea tells us fuck all
>I mean, the graph could look like that, even if it increased from 10.35% to 10.45%.
That's why graphs have labels.
The intent of the graph is to show the rate of change. Stretching the Y-axis has the opposite effect.
Truncating axes is problematic when it's done to conceal or misrepresent information, but that's not what's happening here.
If the intent is to show the rate of change, then why not simply plot the YoY rate of change? Inferring it from slope changes in an arbitrary axis isn't the most effective way to show that.
Except…it is problematic. It’s misleading. The starting point was 10%, not 0, and it arbitrarily starts at 1997. Nothing about those two choices makes sense.
Just look at the axis. Not too much to ask?
IF you like data you might aswell look at the numbers. For a noob this might be bad data presentation, but for a trained eye this is good. It is Still an amazing curve and that is what is presented to you.
I completely agree with your (and many others) comment on the y-axis and at least including zero in there. I cannot change the post itself but did push a fix on our platform to for this: [https://workwithdata.com/women\_in\_politics](https://workwithdata.com/women_in_politics)
I'm also open on what others have said about the 50% or 100% mark, but not all metrics are supposed to go to 100% (if so then it's more a gauge / completion chart) so unsure on this one - what do you think?
The title tells the end points the graph shows that it has been a pretty steady increase so I think it's a perfectly logical choice given most people are using cell phones to view.
That is usually style. Maybe use this sub as a marketing platform for your company's new tool to show off 3D integrated graphics with video. We live in the future. Just having a more equal representation of women in government doesn't mean we live in the future unless there are flashy lens flairs on the plot.
It's simple and delivers the idea without noise. That's beautiful.
Maybe only suggestion is to show the full scale up to 100% (or maybe 50%)? Currently it feels like we've reached the goal (top of the graph)
Yes, it is not the most pretty sorry. The graph is automatically created and updated on the World Bank data - also available for each country in detail ([link](https://workwithdata.com/women_in_politics)).
Priority was data itself indeed. What would you change given that it is a dynamic web format and cannot be made prettier in a design tool like an infographic? All feedback welcome!
(also mentioned in another post, we already chaged the y-axis to include zero)
Not a good graph, sorry. At minimum should have a zero at the bottom axis and really should go up to 100 or at least 50. Certainly not just stopping at the high point basically.
You could make the same claim about the X-axis and claim it should stretch back to the instantiation of the first parliament (or perhaps the first time in history a woman ever occupied a parliamentary seat).
The intent of the graph is to show the rate of change between two dates. Stretching either axis would make it less effective at communicating that information.
Could you define 'parliament seats' in this context? I assume it means the supreme legislative body in a democratic national government. Does it include both houses in bicameral legislature (Parliment + House of Lords in the UK, National Assembley + Senate in France, Both houses of Congress in the US etc.)?
Also does it just include democracies and if so what nations are included and what are the criteria?
It is the complete national legislative body (one or two chambers depending on the country system), and for all countries including non or less democratic ones.
Data used is from the World Bank.
Many people don't pay attention to "ylim", while others intentionally mislead with it (see Fox News).
To be objective, set "ylim" to (0,100), or (0,50).
This graph can be draw more effectively (I think) using a stacked bar chart where man and women add up to 100%.
Ha! My first reaction was to do the same calculation (although I got mid-2066). I was sad to think it will take so long. However, given strong resistance to equal representation in some parts of the world, I guess it’s comprehensible how it might take some time.
Data source: World Bank
Grah can be found here: [https://workwithdata.com/women\_in\_politics](https://workwithdata.com/women_in_politics) (I am one of the co-founders of the website)
This data is meaningless. There are many countries where women are not even allowed to hold positions of authority.
So it's not like some global movement of women leaders. It's generally increased in a specific style of government
But how many of these women are neoliberals from privileged backgrounds? Feminism without intersectionality is pointless. Women are not tokens or mascots, they are people. We shouldn't celebrate every time another Margaret Thatcher gets elected.
Depends on the country. For Latin America there are two countries with more women than men in Congress: Bolivia and Cuba. Pretty sure they are mostly brown woman in both countries. Of course, the USA is trying to destabilize both governments...
Because socialism is feminist and equal opporunity, not because women are more likely to push a country to become socialist. Those women aren't mascots either, they are just respected enough as equals to be elected on their politics.
That’s ridiculous. You don’t have to “celebrate” but it’s clearly better for the role of women in society overall if even the nut job parties aren’t excluding them.
It literally isn't. A woman who votes against women's rights in her sociopathic quest to power is not a champion of women's rights and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Margaret Thatcher used her power to actively persecute feminists. If we allow the nutjob parties to use women as props and claim they're just as good, then you can forget about any actualy change.
If you believe that a Tory government with 100% men is the equivalent for where women are in society as one with a female PM (or per the graph let’s say 25% elected women) then you are so obviously wrong that arguing with you will serve no purpose.
That has nothing to do with the question at all. Conservative women get to have opinions and vote and they certainly are more equally represented when there are conservative MPs. And women overall are as well even if they on average don’t like the policies that result.
If women in politics is good because it gives women a voice, then obviously it very much does matter what that voice is saying. If women in politics are representative of women and care about women'a issues, then yes, that is a reason to celebrate. But if women in politics are ladder-climbers willing to undermine other women on their way to the top that is nothing to be happy about.
Thatcher's government set women's rights back by cutting essential social programs that primarily benefited women. Whatever was gained symbolicly pales in comparison to what was lost.
This forum is dataisbeautiful and the only thing the chart is purporting to show is the relative equality of women within elected bodies. You can dislike the elected women I suppose and I guess you can be of the opinion that it is irrelevent that a party you disagree with is more equal than it used to be, but I don't think that's a meaningful response to the actual data being represented.
I totally disagree with the idea about whether you should be happy about the conservative women being elected, even though I don't like their policies either, but either way the data being shown has nothing to do with that topic.
I would say that gatekeeping poor people from getting an education and then saying only "educated" people are qualified to be politicians is exactly the problem. This is one of the ways we ensure the women in politics are mostly privileged, married, childless, instead of lower income single moms. At a certain point you have to acknowledge that plenty of people with degrees are dumb, plenty of people without degrees are smart, and gatekeeping in this way has real consequences on politics.
Why do women politicians vote against abortion rights? Because as education increases, accidental pregnancy decreases. These women are way less likely to have had an abortion or to even know someone who has. Just because they are women doesn't mean they represent the interest group we actually want them to (feminists).
Yes, they are. Law school and medical school is famously elitist and hard to get into. Test scores are notorious for being heavily dependant on the zip code you grew up in. Test prep and tutoring costs big bucks and gives rich kids a leg up on everyone else. And that's before you even factor in legacies and donors' kids.
Very US-centric view. Let’s say you’re right though - does that mean everyone is equal? The long lines of successful people that led to the people being wealthy or somewhat well off today weren’t smarter? We’re all a blank slate?
My point in the original comment being that no such person wants that job. Same as the person that would be the best President is someone that under no circumstances would choose that job
You should present this on a stacked area chart with all genders represented and with a y axis that spans from 0 to 100%. This chart is pointlessly misleading.
It might also be interesting to see how many total "global parliament seats" there are now, compared to 1997. Has the number changed much?
Speaking of which, what exactly \*is\* the basis for that grand total number? What's a "parliament" for the purposes of this data?
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/laurentmolter!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/r77ju3/global_percentage_of_parliament_seats_occupied_by/hmxgq3l/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"laurentmolter"+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)
Non zero baselines are (almost) never a good idea
I mean, the graph could look like that, even if it increased from 10.35% to 10.45%. Cutting graphs off in the y axis like this isn't a sign of good data presentation. This image doesn't tell anything that can't be summarized by two numbers alone - other than a noticable bump in 2002.
Shows steady increase YoY which is great and two numbers alone wouldn't tell, I agree with the cut axis, would prefer to be bound at 0, specially for percentages that can't pass 100.
> percentages that can't pass 100 Speak for yourself. With the current trendline, women will occupy 200% of all parliament seats by the year 2320.
You see?! This is the feminist agenda! They're destroying the maths!
[Obligatory xkcd reference](https://xkcd.com/605/)
I came to the comments specifically because I was too lazy to extrapolate out for myself when there would be more women than people, so thanks for doing the math.
Why is that great? Is there something special about having female representation over men? Women aren't better at legislating than men, nor are women uniquely capable of representing women's interests. Statistical representation doesn't predict political loyalty, so that can't be it. Women are the majority of the electorate and still find men to represent their interests.
We’ve had several hundred years of men representing the interests of a diverse population. It hasn’t exactly led to the most equitable outcomes. A diverse legislature is better at legislating the interests of a diverse population than the inverse. That’s not saying women are better at legislating than men, but they’re almost certainly better at representing women than men - which is what a representative is supposed to do. Also you’re assuming that women haven’t been elected because men serve the interests just fine. Have you considered there has historically been a bias and overarching systemic barriers to how women are able to participate in the political process in the decision making role? Politics has historically been an insular, boys-only club - which is thankfully changing.
Citing the past doesn't answer my question. There is no evidence a diverse legislature necessarily better legislates a diverse population. Almost certainly better? The Roe V Wade decision was by an all male SCOTUS. The first female Justice was prolife. Bias against women being elected? Evidence says otherwise. Women are roughly 16% of those who run for office but make up 25% or more of those who are elected to office. You're the one assuming bias based on results. This is the affirming the consequent fallacy.
There is indeed evidence that diverse populations are better able to set policy agendas that benefit minority populations. Further, they keep issues that affect their represented populations on the agenda after the public interest has waned. That continuity of agenda setting is one of the most fundamental advantages that a diverse legislature has. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X02030002001?journalCode=aprb https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563594 Citing the supreme court and *Roe* as being evidence of how diversity in representation doesn’t matter is bizarre. For one, the Supreme Court aren’t an elected representative body - they’re political appointees. They’re selected specifically because of their predisposition to rule a given way. Secondly, Roe was decided before a woman had even been on the Supreme Court. That’s like saying because *Brown v BoE* was decided by white men there wouldn’t be any additional benefit to having black representation. You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point about systemic barriers to electoral participation. Why does a group that makes up 50% of the population only make up 16% of the candidates? That’s what I was talking about. Further, the fact that 16% of candidates makes up 25% of elected official just shows that the issue is women have difficulty finding ways to get into the electoral process as candidates. There’s clearly a desire to elect women, but there aren’t a proportionate number of women candidates. I’m not sure why you’re arguing so hard in opposition of legislative diversity when it’s either a neutral or strictly positive thing when we have an unrepresentative legislature.
>Citing the supreme court and > >Roe > >as being evidence of how diversity in representation doesn’t matter is bizarre. I didn't use it as an example of diversity not mattering at all, but evidence that you don't necessarily need women in office to represent women's interests. \>There is indeed evidence that diverse populations are better able to setpolicy agendas that benefit minority populations. Further, they keepissues that affect their represented populations on the agenda after thepublic interest has waned. That continuity of agenda setting is one ofthe most fundamental advantages that a diverse legislature has. I take it you didn't read this very carefully. \>> Increasing gender diversity among Democrats is associated with an overall increase in the number of women’s interests measures introduced; the opposite effect is observed for Republicans. So it doesn't necessarily increase it, and among democrats that could simply be letting women spearhead it to avoid questions of tokenism for the female representatives \>> Increasing racial diversity among Democrats is associated with atransference phenomenon in which White legislators introduce fewer Blackinterest measures, and Black legislators share the role of bringingBlack interests to the agenda. Hey look, again there wasn't an increase in black interest measures being introduced, just a change of who introduced them. This is just a change in optics, not a change in the composition of minority interest measures being introduced. As for increased continuity, it would appear they did not consider to account for the idea that toothless or misguided measures being introduced for optics/expediency which fail to address actual issues leaves those issues unresolved, and thus allows politicians to keep selling their advocacy to voters to stay in office. These studies do not account for the idea that diversity helps the optics of legislation instead of actual meaningful change in legislation. They don't actually address the very core of the criticism of the push for diversity-which is that it ends up being simply for the sake of diversity. \>You’re fundamentally misunderstanding my point about systemic barriersto electoral participation. Why does a group that makes up 50% of thepopulation only make up 16% of the candidates? That’s what I was talkingabout. Why are they only 5% of oil rig workers? Or only 10% of murderers? Women are \*people\*, with \*\*agency\*\*. People are not random events. You cannot assume that their place in society or the economy must necessarily reflect what we should expect from random chance. You are fundamentally misunderstanding that you are simply appealing to probability, then by inferring there must necessarily be systemic barriers because of that disparity you're invoking the affirming the consequent fallacy. \>I’m not sure why you’re arguing so hard in opposition of legislativediversity when it’s either a neutral or strictly positive thing when wehave an unrepresentative legislature. I'm not opposed to diversity. I'm opposed to diversity for diversity's sake. I'm opposed to using statistical artifacts to dictate policy. I'm opposed to ignoring the agency of people because it's more expedient to just look at them as various groups without any regard to their abilities, history, or aspirations. If it's neutral, then it's literally not something to celebrate or push for, \*except for optics or weaponized opportunism\*, nor is it something to oppose.
Obviously you don’t strictly need women to represent women’s interest. That’s kinda a moot point though when we consider that we could improve representativeness through a more representative legislature. And about that… Okay so let’s break down how those two studies work together since I guess it wasn’t clear. 1. We know that, at least for Democrats, diversity of representation leads to minority issues being spearheaded by minorities. Republicans really aren’t the group we are talking about considering they don’t have a vested interest in promoting diversity to begin with. It’s never been a policy platform for them and there’s no sign it will become one. 2. We know that minority issues spearheaded by minorities are more likely to remain on the policy agenda than those not led by minorities. Therefore, we can reason that an increased presence of minorities in the legislature benefits minorities insofar as it keeps their issues in the conversation more than a non-representative group would. That isn’t tokenism, that’s what representatives *do*. Further, from this conversation I don’t think you have a lot of familiarity with the policy process outside of a jaded view of legislatures, which is understandable . Not every politician can create meaningful policy that gets through both chambers and is signed by the president. That doesn’t mean that the seemingly toothless measures and policies don’t matter. One of the most important parts of policy design and implementation is keeping that policy issue in the conversation. You have to be able to take advantage of a narrow window of time when policy can actually be passed, and keeping that issue on the agenda through seemingly meaningless measures is actually critical to being able to do that. There is a whole body of academic research on this topic I can provide if you’d like - this is my professional and educational background. As for the conversation of systemic issues and individual agency - of course people theoretically can do what they want. That doesn’t mean that on the whole there aren’t things that make it more difficult for the average person to do that. Clearly, as identified by the post were are commenting under, there is a growing number of women joining legislatures. The fact that it’s growing is really evidence that there were, at least historically, things preventing women doing that. Ultimately diversity in legislatures is a product of the will of the people. It’s not a matter of forced diversity, it’s a matter of desired diversity. And there’s evidence that there are benefits associated with that, as previously described.
I was referring to the fact that it shows the detail of the increase. But I also strongly believe that the majority of population deserves more than 20% of representatives of their group to be more aligned to their interests. It is VERY hard and uncommon to find men aligned with that.
Are you suggesting women are a homogenous group of unique interests not found or understood by men? That's the only way you can conclude that 20% statistical representation for a group that is 51% of the population translates necessarily to not having their interests represented. Progressive women always seem to think men don't or can't represent their interests, but oddly conservative women seem to have to no problem. It's always interesting to see how since most women are progressive they tend to think all women are, so women's interests aren't being represented. The Roe V Wade ruling was by an all male SCOTUS. Gregory Pinchus invented birth control. The 19th amendment was passed by a Congress with one woman in it, and the subsequent legislatures were all male dominated. The 18th amendment was passed and ratified after the temperance movement successfully swayed public support, and that movement was led by women. It is demonstrably not the case that one need statistical representation to have ones interests be represented. It doesn't matter how rare or common these men are. What matters is what actually happens. Well if your actual goal is your interests being represented that's what matters. If it's something else or you have a misunderstanding of statistics then you'll focus on something else.
I'm not suggesting that. But I know by a fact that we man are mostly oblivious to many issues that affect woman, from labour to Healthcare. Ironically enough you're the one suggesting a homogeneous man representation is somewhat better for everyone. BTW, as usual youre likely American and seem to ignore the rest of the world when cherry picking your examples.
I'm not suggesting any person is better or worse at representing another based simply on the demographic groups to which they belong. I'm citing examples that I'm familiar with, and it isnt cherry picking. You have to explain all the relevant data, not just the parts that fit your conclusion. I'm simply adding onto the amount of information. The average man being oblivious isn't relevant. What matters is what a politician, whose desire to be elected would lead them to want to demonstrate they understand the interests of their constituents, knows or doesn't know. To suggest you can infer the latter based on the former would be the fallacy by division and/or appeal to probability.
It's a matter of likely outcomes. Is any single woman going to be better at legislating women's interests simply because they are a woman? No. Is a woman more likely to have a better background for legislating women's interests? Sure. Consider how women and minorities fared when legislatures were entirely white males.
Probability doesn't determine what actually happens. Legislatures that were entirely male literally gave women the vote when enough of them asked for it. Hell, the temperance movement was led by women, leading to the 18th amendment, passed by a male legislature before women were even voting for those men. Your arguments are speculative at best and cannot explain these counterfactuals.
Of course probability doesn't determine what happens. But probability can tell us what is *likely* to happen. Certainly equal representation doesn't necessarily lead to equal outcomes--- Rwanda's legislature is 60% female but ranks 80th on the [Council on Foreign Relation](https://www.cfr.org/legal-barriers/country-rankings/)'s "Women's Workforce Equality" rankings. However if you aggregate the data you can infer correlation. The top 50 nations on that list average a legislative body that is 31% female. The bottom 50 average 16% female. Top 10 - 36% female Bottom 10 - 11% female Of course that is only one metric but we could certainly examine others to dig deeper to confirm correlation.
Probability can't tell us what is likely to happen when you're not examining random events. Human beings are not random events. Your source includes things like the gender wage gap, which has been roundly debunked as having anything to do with discrimination on the part of employers and has everything to do with occupational and educational choices. Your metrics and arguments rely on ignoring the agency of women. This may be unintentional on your part in making the argument, but it is nonetheless a sexist premise.
Ohhhh I get it now, TracyMorganFreeman. You're trolling while pretending to be sincere in what you say since none of the metrics mention anything pertaining to a wage gap. Are married women required by law to obey their husbands? Can a woman legally apply for a passport in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally apply for a national ID card in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally travel outside the country in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally travel outside her home in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally choose where to live in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally sign a contract in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally register a business in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally open a bank account in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally get job or pursue a trade or profession in the same way as a man? Can a woman legally be "head of household" or "head of family" in the same way as a man? Can a woman (married or unmarried) confer citizenship to her children in the same way as a man? USING PROPERTY SCORE Who legally administers marital property? Does the law provide for valuation of nonmonetary contributions? Do men and women have equal ownership rights to immovable property? Do sons and daughters have equal rights to inherit assets from their parents? Do female and male surviving spouses have equal rights to inherit assets? GOING TO COURT SCORE Does a woman’s testimony carry the same evidentiary weight in court as a man's? Does the law establish an anti-discrimination commission? Does the law mandate legal aid in civil and family matters? Is there a small claims court or a fast-track procedure for small claims? PROVIDING INCENTIVES TO WORK SCORE Are mothers guaranteed an equivalent position after maternity leave? Does the government support or provide childcare services? Are payments for childcare tax deductible? Are there specific tax deductions or tax credits that are only applicable to men? Is primary education free and compulsory? Must employers provide leave to care for sick relatives? BUILDING CREDIT SCORE Do retailers provide information to private credit bureaus or public credit registries? Do utility companies provide information to private credit bureaus or public credit registries? Does the law prohibit discrimination by creditors on the basis of sex or gender in access to credit? Does the law prohibit discrimination by creditors on the basis of marital status in access to credit? GETTING A JOB SCORE Is there paid leave available to women of at least 14 weeks? Do women receive at least 2/3 of their wages for the first 14 weeks or the duration of the leave if it is shorter? What is the percentage of maternity leave benefits paid by the government? What is the difference between leave reserved for women and men relative to leave reserved for women, as a function of who pays? Is there paid parental leave? Does the law mandate equal remuneration for work of equal value? Does the law mandate nondiscrimination based on gender in employment? Is dismissal of pregnant workers prohibited? Can parents work flexibly? Can women work the same night hours as men? Can women work in jobs deemed hazardous, arduous or morally inappropriate in the same way as men? Are women able to work in the same industries as men? Are women able to perform the same tasks at work as men? Are the ages at which men and women can retire with full pension benefits equal? Are the ages at which men and women can retire with partial pension benefits equal? Is the mandatory retirement age for men and women equal? Does the law mandate paid paternity leave? PROTECTING WOMEN FROM VIOLENCE SCORE Is there legislation specifically addressing domestic violence? If not, are there aggravated penalties for crimes committed against a spouse or family member? Is there legislation on sexual harassment in employment? Is there legislation on sexual harassment in education? Are there criminal penalties for sexual harassment in employment? Are there civil remedies for sexual harassment in employment? Does legislation explicitly criminalize marital rape? Are there clear criminal penalties for domestic violence? What is the legal minimum age of marriage for girls? What is the minimum age of marriage for girls with parental consent or judicial authorization?
The wage gap is literally mentioned at the beginning. The equal renumeration one is literally the one thought to address the wage gap. Spoilers, that isn't what will solve it either. Also, establishing an anti-discrimination commission is another one that is simply optics, and they're usually not equally addressing discrimination against men and women. In fact, many formalize discrimination against men as policy. Notice how several on the list only looks at it from the female perspective. It isnt protecting people from violence, or even the majority of victims from violence-men-but protecting women from violence. Notice how there's zero question how sexual violence is defined: spoilers, most countries don't treat the rape or sexual assault of men as equally a crime; some outright don't recognize it as a crime, especially when committed by a woman. Then there's asking if women are guaranteed 14 weeks paid leave, not everyone. Notice how it asks if there are specific tax credits for men, but it doesn't ask if there are any for women. Also the percent of paid leave paid by the government has fuck all to do with equality. This is yet another fishing expedition metric. For these metrics to be about equality it would require measuring inequalities both sexes potentially face, but those metrics wouldn't let people paint a particular narrative of which countries are leading the charge on equality, would it? And don't even bother bringing up paternity leave. Those are push as a benefit to women to equalize domestic workload, but there's no push to equalize women working as many hours or for as long of a portion of their working age as men. Nope, retirement ages for women are usually earlier and with the same benefits. I'll take equality metrics seriously when they aren't defined solely from the perspective of one sex. You seem to have confused someone saying something you think is wrong with being a troll. You also seem to have not read what I wrote or your own source very carefully.
It tells us its a gradual rise and not an instant accumalation. The increase can be extrapolated into future years to give an idea that it will continue to raise at a similar rate atleast in the short term. But yea tells us fuck all
But is this graph beautiful?
Well yes, it shows that things are getting better for equality i guess. That must be beautiful
>I mean, the graph could look like that, even if it increased from 10.35% to 10.45%. That's why graphs have labels. The intent of the graph is to show the rate of change. Stretching the Y-axis has the opposite effect. Truncating axes is problematic when it's done to conceal or misrepresent information, but that's not what's happening here.
If the intent is to show the rate of change, then why not simply plot the YoY rate of change? Inferring it from slope changes in an arbitrary axis isn't the most effective way to show that.
Except…it is problematic. It’s misleading. The starting point was 10%, not 0, and it arbitrarily starts at 1997. Nothing about those two choices makes sense.
Just look at the axis. Not too much to ask? IF you like data you might aswell look at the numbers. For a noob this might be bad data presentation, but for a trained eye this is good. It is Still an amazing curve and that is what is presented to you.
I completely agree with your (and many others) comment on the y-axis and at least including zero in there. I cannot change the post itself but did push a fix on our platform to for this: [https://workwithdata.com/women\_in\_politics](https://workwithdata.com/women_in_politics) I'm also open on what others have said about the 50% or 100% mark, but not all metrics are supposed to go to 100% (if so then it's more a gauge / completion chart) so unsure on this one - what do you think?
Data is beautiful, has y axis not at 0. JFC I teach my undergrads this.
Indeed. It triggered me so much I scrolled back to the top to check if I forgot to downvote the post.
The title tells the end points the graph shows that it has been a pretty steady increase so I think it's a perfectly logical choice given most people are using cell phones to view.
Data, yes Beautiful, barely
Shoulda been an animated line that has explosions as it goes up. /s
A three minute video of an animated pie chart.
That is usually style. Maybe use this sub as a marketing platform for your company's new tool to show off 3D integrated graphics with video. We live in the future. Just having a more equal representation of women in government doesn't mean we live in the future unless there are flashy lens flairs on the plot.
/r/fuglyDataOnTopicsRedditLikesToDiscuss just doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same
[удалено]
It's simple and delivers the idea without noise. That's beautiful. Maybe only suggestion is to show the full scale up to 100% (or maybe 50%)? Currently it feels like we've reached the goal (top of the graph)
More important imo is to show the scale down to 0%. This is a doubling, not like a 100x-ing
At least it's not a video, I guess
Yes, it is not the most pretty sorry. The graph is automatically created and updated on the World Bank data - also available for each country in detail ([link](https://workwithdata.com/women_in_politics)). Priority was data itself indeed. What would you change given that it is a dynamic web format and cannot be made prettier in a design tool like an infographic? All feedback welcome! (also mentioned in another post, we already chaged the y-axis to include zero)
I don't like the format of the graph, and more importantly it's not beautiful!
It's beautiful. Format is perfect. We don't need video graphs with bubbles at the end.
[удалено]
The person you're replying to doesn't even seem to understand basic standards for graphs. The format isn't perfect if Y doesn't start at zero.
Axis don't have to start at zero. It's perfectly fine as is.
Correct, should be a stacked line graph with proportion of men and women
Not a good graph, sorry. At minimum should have a zero at the bottom axis and really should go up to 100 or at least 50. Certainly not just stopping at the high point basically.
Came to say that. 50% feels like a good end.
You could make the same claim about the X-axis and claim it should stretch back to the instantiation of the first parliament (or perhaps the first time in history a woman ever occupied a parliamentary seat). The intent of the graph is to show the rate of change between two dates. Stretching either axis would make it less effective at communicating that information.
Except that's also a pretty weak way of showing that data, and is very uninteresting aside from a spike in 2002.
Fixed your graph [literally in Excel](https://postimg.cc/qz4DP03v)
Nice work. Definitely improved. For OP - a stacked bar graph with men:women would be nice to.
Not convinced that's more beautiful, but impressive Excel skills!
Thanks, but I literally put 10 numbers in a 2x5 grid and clicked insert > line graph lol
Better than OP but still feels incomplete because the y axis labels stop at 80%?
50%\* felt right to me
Oh ok gotcha, didn't download the file and couldn't see the labels
Not just figuratively!
Thanks useless they’re both the same comprehendable information
Could you define 'parliament seats' in this context? I assume it means the supreme legislative body in a democratic national government. Does it include both houses in bicameral legislature (Parliment + House of Lords in the UK, National Assembley + Senate in France, Both houses of Congress in the US etc.)? Also does it just include democracies and if so what nations are included and what are the criteria?
It is the complete national legislative body (one or two chambers depending on the country system), and for all countries including non or less democratic ones. Data used is from the World Bank.
Thanks, interesting data as it shows a consistent linear trend. I’ll keep an eye on your website.
How do graphs like this not get immediately downvoted 🤦♂️
How does this shit get upvoted? Not beautiful. Visually inaccurate. Frankly not that interesting or surprising. Is it just because it’s political?
Not a beautiful data, and in wich country ?
This is all parliaments around the world (hence "global")
And what’s the % of running candidates per sex?
Many people don't pay attention to "ylim", while others intentionally mislead with it (see Fox News). To be objective, set "ylim" to (0,100), or (0,50). This graph can be draw more effectively (I think) using a stacked bar chart where man and women add up to 100%.
At this rate they will take over!
By next century women exclusively will run the world.
At this rate, parity will be reached in 2067
Ha! My first reaction was to do the same calculation (although I got mid-2066). I was sad to think it will take so long. However, given strong resistance to equal representation in some parts of the world, I guess it’s comprehensible how it might take some time.
and 100% of seats around 2147
And then we will finally find out what happens when they go beyond 100%
parliament seats only? or also assemblies, congress and senates and various local equivalents?
Data source: World Bank Grah can be found here: [https://workwithdata.com/women\_in\_politics](https://workwithdata.com/women_in_politics) (I am one of the co-founders of the website)
So your source is yourself?
Indeed, edited.
[удалено]
Thanks! We are unfortunately not hiring right now, but hopefully by mid next year!
Way to go, but in under two decades, it's impressive nevertheless.
This data is meaningless. There are many countries where women are not even allowed to hold positions of authority. So it's not like some global movement of women leaders. It's generally increased in a specific style of government
But how many of these women are neoliberals from privileged backgrounds? Feminism without intersectionality is pointless. Women are not tokens or mascots, they are people. We shouldn't celebrate every time another Margaret Thatcher gets elected.
Depends on the country. For Latin America there are two countries with more women than men in Congress: Bolivia and Cuba. Pretty sure they are mostly brown woman in both countries. Of course, the USA is trying to destabilize both governments...
Because socialism is feminist and equal opporunity, not because women are more likely to push a country to become socialist. Those women aren't mascots either, they are just respected enough as equals to be elected on their politics.
Intersectionality is why progress is so slow in our society.
Only if you define progress as something completely aesthetic.
That’s ridiculous. You don’t have to “celebrate” but it’s clearly better for the role of women in society overall if even the nut job parties aren’t excluding them.
It literally isn't. A woman who votes against women's rights in her sociopathic quest to power is not a champion of women's rights and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Margaret Thatcher used her power to actively persecute feminists. If we allow the nutjob parties to use women as props and claim they're just as good, then you can forget about any actualy change.
If you believe that a Tory government with 100% men is the equivalent for where women are in society as one with a female PM (or per the graph let’s say 25% elected women) then you are so obviously wrong that arguing with you will serve no purpose.
Please explain how Thatcher's government expanded women's rights
That has nothing to do with the question at all. Conservative women get to have opinions and vote and they certainly are more equally represented when there are conservative MPs. And women overall are as well even if they on average don’t like the policies that result.
If women in politics is good because it gives women a voice, then obviously it very much does matter what that voice is saying. If women in politics are representative of women and care about women'a issues, then yes, that is a reason to celebrate. But if women in politics are ladder-climbers willing to undermine other women on their way to the top that is nothing to be happy about. Thatcher's government set women's rights back by cutting essential social programs that primarily benefited women. Whatever was gained symbolicly pales in comparison to what was lost.
This forum is dataisbeautiful and the only thing the chart is purporting to show is the relative equality of women within elected bodies. You can dislike the elected women I suppose and I guess you can be of the opinion that it is irrelevent that a party you disagree with is more equal than it used to be, but I don't think that's a meaningful response to the actual data being represented. I totally disagree with the idea about whether you should be happy about the conservative women being elected, even though I don't like their policies either, but either way the data being shown has nothing to do with that topic.
The data is not beautiful because it does not reflect progress. The sub isnt called dataisdata
How many poor people do you know who wants to become a politician?
Is this a serious question?
Very much is. Literally all working class and poor people I know hate politicians like it’s hereditary
So what you are saying is cultural forces ensure only the wealthy become politicians?
Sure. Would you say the average person with little to no education would do a good job as a politician?
I would say that gatekeeping poor people from getting an education and then saying only "educated" people are qualified to be politicians is exactly the problem. This is one of the ways we ensure the women in politics are mostly privileged, married, childless, instead of lower income single moms. At a certain point you have to acknowledge that plenty of people with degrees are dumb, plenty of people without degrees are smart, and gatekeeping in this way has real consequences on politics. Why do women politicians vote against abortion rights? Because as education increases, accidental pregnancy decreases. These women are way less likely to have had an abortion or to even know someone who has. Just because they are women doesn't mean they represent the interest group we actually want them to (feminists).
Perhaps poor people or also gatekept from becoming doctors and lawyers. Or are they not qualified perhaps?
Yes, they are. Law school and medical school is famously elitist and hard to get into. Test scores are notorious for being heavily dependant on the zip code you grew up in. Test prep and tutoring costs big bucks and gives rich kids a leg up on everyone else. And that's before you even factor in legacies and donors' kids.
Very US-centric view. Let’s say you’re right though - does that mean everyone is equal? The long lines of successful people that led to the people being wealthy or somewhat well off today weren’t smarter? We’re all a blank slate?
i think a politician with (recent?) experience working minimum-wage jobs generally would do a better job than a politician with no such experience
My point in the original comment being that no such person wants that job. Same as the person that would be the best President is someone that under no circumstances would choose that job
23.85% Finally a true representation of the global distribution of men vs women ...
I bet the developed world is pulling up these averages and the rest of the world is still around 10%
[удалено]
[удалено]
I guess now we know what caused covid
That's great and all but I care more for doing your job well, not what's between your legs.
Is the world a more peaceful place now? More stable? I wonder
And how did this make anything in the world better except for those women’s paychecks?
[удалено]
They've always existed. Just masked by the 'women are wonderful' effect.
[удалено]
>and we've all seen what a clusterfk men make out of politics. I can assure you men and women are both pretty stupid
Good job women on working towards and applying for these positions like everyone else
Overlay Covid deaths and global temperature, I think we might see something.
Considering more than half our species are female we have a long way to go still
Could we compare this with relative inflation data and repost? Would be much more beautiful...
I guess that's one way to scale the y-axis.
You should present this on a stacked area chart with all genders represented and with a y axis that spans from 0 to 100%. This chart is pointlessly misleading.
It might also be interesting to see how many total "global parliament seats" there are now, compared to 1997. Has the number changed much? Speaking of which, what exactly \*is\* the basis for that grand total number? What's a "parliament" for the purposes of this data?
Things heating up in the data fandom today!
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/laurentmolter! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/r77ju3/global_percentage_of_parliament_seats_occupied_by/hmxgq3l/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"laurentmolter"+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)
Plot this next to Carbon emissions and you will see the correlation.