This new United Nations report makes it clear that in many countries around the world, being a woman is dangerous to your health, to say nothing of your future prospects or pursuit of happiness. From the executive summary: “The roots of violence against women lie in historically unequal power relations between men and women and pervasive discrimination against women in both the public and private spheres. Patriarchal disparities of power, discriminatory cultural norms and economic inequalities serve to deny women’s human rights and perpetuate violence. Violence against women is one of the key means through which male control over women’s agency and sexuality is maintained.”
The full downloadable report offers a rollup, toward the end, of the cost of violence against women. But these costs are derived from a hodgepodge of studies from just a few countries and make comparison pretty much impossible; and, perhaps more important, they address the downside of violence only in financial cost.
But the report got me to thinking: Is the U.S. the best place in the world to be a woman? I am guessing the answer is no. The Scandinavian countries come to mind, as does Canada and some countries in western Europe. But in terms of health, education, income, cultural and political opportunities — and, yes, the level of violence — I would have to think that the U.S. is at the very least in the world’s top 10. What do you think?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
One interesting axis is infant mortality, since it reflects fairly accurately the health and safety of women of child-bearing age, both before and after childbirth.
According to the CIA World Fact Book, the U.S. is #43 for lowest infant mortality rate out of 225 countries listed (including a couple of regions like the EU), just ahead of Croatia: not in the top 10, but safely in the top half, at least. The American infant mortality rate is almost 40% higher than Canada’s (#23), and nearly triple Singapore’s (#1).
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
(Note that the list is in order of *higest* infant mortality, so you have to flip it.)
One interesting axis is infant mortality, since it reflects fairly accurately the health and safety of women of child-bearing age, both before and after childbirth.
According to the CIA World Fact Book, the U.S. is #43 for lowest infant mortality rate out of 225 countries listed (including a couple of regions like the EU), just ahead of Croatia: not in the top 10, but safely in the top half, at least. The American infant mortality rate is almost 40% higher than Canada’s (#23), and nearly triple Singapore’s (#1).
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
(Note that the list is in order of *higest* infant mortality, so you have to flip it.)
pdowney: while I agree with you that the Canadian leave is better for mothers (and fathers) with young children, the info you provide is a bit exaggerated.
In Canada, jobs are protected for the full 52 weeks, and up to 55% of one’s salary is compensated through employment insurance (if you qualify). There is a cap on this though, so if you are a high earner, the EI payments may actually be a small percentage of your income. If you are a high earner and your company doesn’t top up, you would take a large pay cut. Not all companies top this up (small, non-unionized), and it is rare for companies to top this up for the full year.
By the way, the 52 weeks are split between mat leave (which only the mother can take) and parental leave (which either parent can take) so the year could be split 1/2 1/2 by both parents.
In the US, the 12 weeks is legislated (non-paid) job protection. Gold plated employee benefit plans will provide longer leave and some compensation.
So the gap between the two systems isn’t quite so dramatic.
pdowney: while I agree with you that the Canadian leave is better for mothers (and fathers) with young children, the info you provide is a bit exaggerated.
In Canada, jobs are protected for the full 52 weeks, and up to 55% of one’s salary is compensated through employment insurance (if you qualify). There is a cap on this though, so if you are a high earner, the EI payments may actually be a small percentage of your income. If you are a high earner and your company doesn’t top up, you would take a large pay cut. Not all companies top this up (small, non-unionized), and it is rare for companies to top this up for the full year.
By the way, the 52 weeks are split between mat leave (which only the mother can take) and parental leave (which either parent can take) so the year could be split 1/2 1/2 by both parents.
In the US, the 12 weeks is legislated (non-paid) job protection. Gold plated employee benefit plans will provide longer leave and some compensation.
So the gap between the two systems isn’t quite so dramatic.
Mat leave hurts women. This program comes at some cost the the employer, which means that, in hiring a woman, the company takes on greater cost (all else held equal) than it would in hiring a man. So, because of this law, women are less likely to be hired. Furthermore, everyone pays for this (through taxes) and the only “winners” are working women who have a certain number of kids.
Mat leave hurts women. This program comes at some cost the the employer, which means that, in hiring a woman, the company takes on greater cost (all else held equal) than it would in hiring a man. So, because of this law, women are less likely to be hired. Furthermore, everyone pays for this (through taxes) and the only “winners” are working women who have a certain number of kids.
Not hiring women because they might become pregnant holds a greater cost as well – sexual discrimination lawsuits. While some companies might play the game and hire as few women of child-bearing years as possible, they run very large risks in doing so.
I’ve spent a lot of time in my career interviewing and recommending candidates; never once have I or anyone I know (be they management, HR, or my peers) ever commented on the potential of a woman taking maternity leave. I can’t speak as to others’ states of mind, but I’ve never even thought about it. Besides, the way FMLA is written, there’s just as big a risk that daddy will take his 12 weeks.
Not hiring women because they might become pregnant holds a greater cost as well – sexual discrimination lawsuits. While some companies might play the game and hire as few women of child-bearing years as possible, they run very large risks in doing so.
I’ve spent a lot of time in my career interviewing and recommending candidates; never once have I or anyone I know (be they management, HR, or my peers) ever commented on the potential of a woman taking maternity leave. I can’t speak as to others’ states of mind, but I’ve never even thought about it. Besides, the way FMLA is written, there’s just as big a risk that daddy will take his 12 weeks.