Occupational Medical Services Company Profile: Fill & Download for Free

I hope my answering this question as a man doesn’t involve me stepping out of my lane. I will welcome any suggestions or edits to correct data or positions taken within the answer.In this answer i talk about some of my problems with the most common gender gap indicator, the WEF Gender gap index, and propose more accurate benchmarks that involve analyzing how many women hold leadership positions on multiple levels in key institutions of power in a country.Some context: My country Pakistan is the second lowest ranked country in the gender gap index. Only war torn Yemen scores below us at the moment. That’s right, out of the 144 nations on the planet, we are at 143. While some marginal progress has been made with the onset of democracy and inclusion of female voters in the political progress, at the moment it’s quite possible that we are the worst possible place on earth for women in terms of gender gap.Back when I was researching Pakistan’s history of communist movements for an answer on Quora, I ran into an interesting article by Marxist Nighat Said Khan. She described one of the most fundamental problems with Marxist movements (in Pakistan at least) with regards to gender: While Marxist movements push for more female empowerment and mobilization of women as fellow comrades to participate in the revolutionary effort and later functioning of a communist state, the communist party leadership were sadly devoid of women in key roles. She described the women in Marxist political meetings as “extensions of a tea tray”. Ornamental, silent, still restricted to their traditional “tea pouring” role in the pre-revolutionary society and with no real power in their hands.Which of course, presents us with the insight that even when we have political ideologies that fight for the empowerment of women and the elevation of their role and status in society, that is not the same as actually sharing power with women. Many men will talk benevolently of their feminist credentials and speak for female education, employment and liberation. Those same men would balk at the prospect of having to compete with the now emancipated women for political roles, government positions, jobs and what not.Based on my limited experience with Marxist history in Pakistan, I would say that any meaningful push for a more feminist society is one that strikes at the heart of our current gender problems: One gender holds less power vis a vis the other. And the only way to correct that is to revise our feminist interpretation of success from meeting certain benchmarks on indicators like pay gaps (which are symptoms of a deeper problem, not the root cause), to one where we try to analyze whether our countries actually give power, true power, the kind of power that if wielded can make or break people to women. Power that allows women a say on critical affairs like which direction should our state, society or organization take. Which values should we hold. How do we define right or wrong? If women have the power to influence the answer to these questions in a society, then it can be called a feminist society.But if our society is one that prefers to restrict itself to treating the symptoms only like pay gaps, then that’s evidence to the contrary.The WEF Global Gender Gap report and my issues with itThe report is a treasure trove of hard data across the spectrum of gender issues. The report is structured so that it’s designed to portray 3 core points:1. Gaps vs. levelsDevelopment level of nations is ignored, the only data analysed is whether men and women are afforded the same access to a country’s resources (be it health, food, education etc). So if a poor country has enrollment rates equal for both girls and boys in school, then it will score higher than a richer nation with a gap between enrollment rates of girls and boys. Makes perfect sense, so moving on.2.The Outputs vs Inputs tab is where I start having some issues with the report:Indicators related to country-specific policies, rights, culture or customs—factors that we consider “input” or “means” indicators—are not included in the Index, but they are displayed in the Country Profiles. For example, the Index includes an indicator comparing the gap between men and women in high-skilled jobs such as legislators, senior officials and managers (an outcome indicator) but does not include data on the length of maternity leave (a policy indicator).Source: The Global Gender Gap Report 2015This somewhat dispels the holistic feel of the report and I get the sense that if factors like government and private sector policies towards women in the work place are not factored in or when a country’s policies, rights, cultures and customs are not factored in it would lead to abnormalities in the data.I feel like they were left out because the analysts wanted a standardized template or a common benchmark/base level from which to establish comparison between all evaluated nations.But honestly, this just opened up so many abnormalities in their report.I talked about how old authoritarian regimes in Eurasia would have female literacy programs and employment programs but not many top leadership roles for women. Or we would have countries with very generous maternity laws but not much female liberty (Saudi Arabia).Say a Gulf state declares that they will allow 33% of the seats in their parliament to be reserved for women. But the no-driving restriction and the “women must be accompanied by their male guardian” law remains. Point #2 would allow that gulf country to score higher than a country with say, 20% female MPs but with more relaxed laws regarding female drivers and no male guardian restrictions.Similarly, a Marxist state that effectively creates a secular society where women have less restrictions on their clothing, their jobs and their role in society would score less than a Gulf state (with conservative laws for women) which scored higher due to government quotas for female MPs and oil wealth creating an artificial “gender balance” on paper due to large social welfare programs in healthcare.More on this point later.3.Gender equality vs. women’s empowermentThe third distinguishing feature of the Global Gender Gap Index is that it ranks countries according to their proximity to gender equality rather than to women’s empowerment. Our aim is to focus on whether the gap between women and men in the chosen indicators has declined, rather than whether women are “winning” the “battle of the sexes”. Hence, the Index rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are outperforming men in particular indicators in some countries. Thus a country that has higher enrollment for girls rather than boys in secondary school will score equal to a country where boys’ and girls’ enrollment is the same.Source: The Global Gender Gap Report 2015It’s almost like they are trying to be politically correct and apologetic to online Mens Rights Activists and the “Not All Men” types. Really weirded out by how specifically they stated this point. Could have done without the stroking of fragile male egos but ok.Here’s my issue with the methodology of the WEF report.It assumes a liberal democracy model of government in some of it’s benchmarks due to its focus on elected officials rather than increasing the scope to other institutions of power like the Judiciary or the Military or Religious Clergy and so on. Which is huge because these institutions can hold a major sway over the political life and society of a country.Take Pakistan for example. A coup prone country where the military holds a huge sway over society and politics. A religious clergy that can organize street level protests and bring pressure to bear on the government when the government tries to pass anti-child marriage, anti-honor killing and anti-rape laws. A judiciary that’s still figuring out it’s role in a democracy and frequently oversteps its bounds to dismiss elected officials.Our elected officials and parliament have pretty decent representation of female officials in terms of MPs and so on. We were the first Muslim country to have a female head of state (Prime Minister Bhutto) and might have another one soon if the ex-PM’s daughter takes up the mantle. So we would score well here but would that matter if real power is being wielded by patriarchal institutions like the military and judiciary?Which brings up another point: Is it really a benchmark of female empowerment if a woman is elected to high office based on her belonging to a political dynasty? That is if she was elected due to the contacts and privilege afforded to her from being the wife/daughter/sister of a powerful male politician rather than an individual recognized for her own achievements.Source: The Global Gender Gap Report 2015Take a look at the factors used in Political empowerment index and the weightages assigned to each.Not only are other political insitutions of power like the military, police, civil service beaurucrats, religous bodies, tribal bodies etc not included but the weightages are off in my opinion.Female MP’s often have reserved seats in parliament for them in some developing countries and you can have some pretty patriarchal societies in the middle east and south Asia have a decent number of female MPs but have horrific female empowerment records. Taking my initial point of political patronage and hereditary links further, we would be having female MPs can be due to females of a powerful tribe or caste or political dynasty being elected based on systems of political patronage in their society rather than being elected because the populace has developed a gender neutral mindset where they view merit above gender.If you have a democracy with healthy representation of female politicians, it wont mean much if they were elected due to dynastic and hereditary political links as compared to being elected by a populace that valued their merit and ignored their gender.Also, If you have a parliament with 25% reserved seats for women, it doesn't translate to female empowerment if the parliament is powerless due to a strong military or religious lobby.I find the weightages a bit off too. An equitable 1/3 split between female MPs, cabinet positions and female head of state is better. Or a pyramid structure with steadily increasing weightage the higher up the political ladder you go would make more sense so that your MPs could have 25% weightage, 35% for Cabinet and 40% for head of state.This is to avoid the problem of “token female head of state” where your PM is strongly bound to run according to a male dominated cabinet. There are a lot of inner party workings in Party chairmanship, intra body elections, cabinet positions and electoral seats etc which can only be taken into account by giving higher weightage to BOTH cabinet positions and female head of state. I would argue that even a top weightage to cabinet positions would be more beneficial and we must also consider WHICH cabinet positions are held be women. It doesn't mean much if the female ministers are banished to Ministry of Forestry and Ministry of Culture while the men hold the top portfolios of Foreign affairs, Defense and Finance.Source: The Global Gender Gap Report 2015The earlier weightages and factors in Economic participation and Educational attainment somewhat attempt to redress the problems in the political section by expanding the scope of female leadership to non-political office roles like corporate executives ( the report does not indicate whether these are civil and private sector business positions or critical government positions like military top brass).But again, we have a weightage problem: The bulk of the weightages are assigned to wage gaps. Not leadership. Wage parity takes up more than 50% of the economic participation index which is REALLY bad in my opinion.These top weightages should be assigned to last two factors that measure top management positions and professional/technical female workers. Does the report think that a female CEO or top female executives will pay THEMSELVES poorly compared to their male counterparts? The pay gap is a symptom of gender disparity which will automatically resolve itself once you have significant female representation in the top ranks of companies and organizations and they will have the power to decide who gets paid what.And the technical and professional worker roles are important because the WEF report is annually made for the purpose of advising governments on how to effectively and productively utilize their female labor force in the face of growing automation. Automation is effectively killing off several industries where women are the dominant participant. Why would a report that’s designed to advice on how to safe guard female workers in the economy from participation assign such a low weightage to female participation in professional and technical fields? These are the fields with the most safety from automation.The same problem is evident in the education index as well which only measures female rates of enrollment and literacy. Not a sector wise breakdown of which fields women are studying for. Are the STEM sciences of a country actually welcoming of women engineers and scientists? Or are they an All Boys club who think women should stick with the arts and food nutrition?Female literacy by itself wont mean much if women are then going into sectors that are at threat from automation, decreasing their job and financial independence and making them dependent on male workers. Trying to solve the wage gap wont mean much if top leadership decisions have no input from women because the top positions are occupied by men only.I would propose a weightage that skews heavily in favor of the last 2 factors (how many women are in top management positions and how many are working in professional and technical capacities). If you have female managers and hiring managers in large enough numbers, the symptoms like female participation and wage gap will begin to resolve themselves.Similarly, Education needs to factor in which sectors women are studying for. If women are harassed or not welcomed in STEM fields at their schools and universities, then it’s pointless to measure only female literacy because it doesn’t take into account whether female workers are given an equal opportunity to go into fields that will be at low risk from automation.I don’t have much to say about the health weight assignments. It’s pretty obvious they are trying to catch female infanticide and female embryo abortion as well as trying to gauge whether women have the same access to health care as men by checking for gaps in life expectancy. These are important indicators.Source: The Global Gender Gap Report 2015I talked about this previously when i criticized the Second Core Factor of the study, the Outputs vs Inputs segment. Basically, the data only takes into account “Outputs” meaning country specific policies towards women are ignored and only certain easily measured, standardized indicators are used to make comparisons.So i’ll bring up the point of country specific policies again.Say you have Country A which provides generous maternity leave and subsidized health care for women but women are required to cover up, not go out without a male guardian etc etc.That country A will score more than a country without generous maternity care but with more social, cultural and political freedom for women.Again, i understand the reason for this was to establish a common base level to allow comparison between states. I just find the base level to be too abnormality prone.Summary of WEF problemsAt the end of the day, the index is still a pretty useful collection of data. It’s core strengths lie along the lines of having a rich abundance of data, a standardized approach which cuts down on the number of factors analyzed to allow meaningful comparison in some ways, a good ability to detect certain forms of gender disparity and some good analysis decisions (the first core factor where they ignored developmental levels of nations to focus exclusively on equal access to current resources by both genders).My issues with the report are over the following few items:Ignoring country specific cultural, social and political policies towards women to focus only on “outputs” (e.g. # of women employed or literate) while useful from a data analysis perspective to standardize the data, opens up a can of worms in that it seriously screws up some of the rankings. A wealthy Gulf state with maternity leave will score higher than a country without it, no matter the policies on women driving or clothing.Left oriented authoritarian regimes with high participation of women in worker force and government positions would score lower than countries with token female leadership and less representation of women in labor and government due to compensating factors like larger health care investments due to oil wealth. This is just one example, but it shows how the index factors and their weightages wont hold up much in reality.The pay gap got too much weightage. More needs to be given to having women in top executive positions. If you have a large enough core of dedicated female leadership at the top in an organization with access to real power and decision making, then symptoms of gender disparity like pay gap and wage gap begin to resolve automatically.Female occupations and educational attainments need to be measured more heavily in professional and technical roles. The current wave of automation sweeping the planet will hit industries previously dominated by female labor. A gender gap will exist in the near future if traditionally female dominated industries get wiped out by automation. Any country looking to combat their gender gap will have to have a sizable portion of their female work force in professional technical roles. The WEF study assigns too low a weight to this factor, preferring to keep the skew towards pay gap.The data methodology is rooted in the western, liberal democracy form of government. Ignoring that several states suffer from political dysfunction. This could mean political power in a state being held largely by a powerful military, a judiciary, religious clergy, a cabal of civil service bureaucrats and other uncollected officials. So the political empowerment section’s focus on legislative branches of government which focus on number of MPs, cabinet positions and female heads of state are meaningless when other political institutions like the military aren’t taken into account.Political representation weightages were off too. Too much emphasis on the head of state and female MPs. There is a track record of token female heads of state that hold no real power in our country and female MPs are already artificially high due to reserved seats and quotas. They don’t indicate whether the gender gap is closed, only that local political elements have become smart enough to project a press friendly, female face to the public and international audience while hold power themselves by keeping key cabinet and party positions for their own use. There’s also the problem that if your female MPs and PMs are being elected because of family links, patronage and tribalism rather than the public viewing them as valued political representatives based on merit, then it’s not really a sign of reducing gender equality is it?Come to think of it, Pakistan, with it’s female prime ministers, fighter pilots, army generals and female voters, scoring lower than Saudi Arabia now begins to sound weird when you think about it. Saudi women are actually known to sometimes marry Pakistani men because Pakistan has more social and cultural freedoms for them.Saudi women prefer to marry foreignersA better indicator: How many women hold positions of power within the top 3 levels of each institution of powerIt would be far superior, in my opinion, to measure whether there is a critical mass of female leadership across key power institutions in the country:Legislative elected officialsThe executive, civil service bearucratsKey organizations like election commissions, disaster management bodies etcThe MilitaryPolice and law enforcementIntelligence agenciesJudiciaryReligious bodiesGrassroots level political and local government bodiesCivil society bodies and citizen bodiesLargest private sector businesses and corporationsEducational bodiesLets we assume a “top down” model that each organization has 1 top head, a panel of executives directly reporting to him or her and a small staff of officers reporting to each executive.Critical mass would mean that all 3 top levels of leadership have a significant enough presence from women that their presence and policies makes an impact on gender disparity throughout the organization.And these policies translate into out-of-organization, real world shifts in gender disparity.Say you have the top CEO, 5 executives and 3 officers for each executive (total of 15). A critical mass would be 2–3 of the executives and half of the staffers being women with the CEO position having a healthy mix of male and female CEOs over time.When you apply the same logic to intensely patriarchal orgs like the military, intelligence and law enforcement, then the results are truly far ranging. All of the 12 organization types that i listed are the kind of political power institutions that can truly decide what kind of society we live in and which direction our country is headed towards.Our primary purpose is to ensure that female leadership has both WIDTH and DEPTH. Width in that it is across multiple institutions of power in civil, military and private sector spheres. Depth in that it is across multiple levels of power (in our example we used the top 3 levels of each organization). This will ensure that a core of female leadership is developed and maintained.I know i spoke disparagingly against quotas earlier when talking about parliament, but that was in that context (civil parliament and female MPs being a problematic benchmark in a country with dynastic politics and a strong military say in government affairs). But here, i’ll state that quotas are absolutely necessary and need to embedded into our constitution and party manifestos as well as organizational policies.There would need to be reserved seats in the top leadership positions in all of these powerful institutions that allow for a critical mass of female leadership to form and maintain itself. And those leadership roles should encompass critical roles within each power institution (not just be confined to auxiliary roles only).Of course, there will be those who say we are weakening national institutions by pushing some PC, feminist, libtard agenda. And that we will push unqualified candidates on critical power institutions just for some feminist crusade.First off, government institutions suffer a lot from sexist, patriarchal bull****. I say this having worked in a government agency myself. Incompetent men benefit immensely from the “all boys club” we have going on in core power institutions. They get to have their fragile egos stroked by making women work under them and at the same time prevent any competition from female colleagues. With the end results that several competent and dynamic female officers leave to go abroad or work in the private sector where they will be valued.Secondly, if you’re at that stage where you cant find even 1 good female candidate for your critical power institutions, then you have failed immensely as a nation to provide education, mentoring and experience opportunities for nearly half of your population. This is an urgent shortcoming to be corrected rather than accepted.If you think women will weaken the armed forces, the intelligence agencies or the judiciary and so on, i have but to recount the long litany of military defeats at the hands of macho, alpha male generals we have running around in our office corp to make my point.At the end of the day, i’m not asking for special favors for a gender. I’m asking for a widening of our talent pool. A feminist approach to our political institutions isn’t about forcing women down our throat. It’s about increasing our selection pool of candidates by doubling it to include women more. Which automatically means we get the chance to find and staff even more and better candidates in our power institutions. And once this happens across the board on our top level political institutions as a whole, in a holistic manner, it will begin to shift our society slowly but surely towards a more feminist mindset as well.Also, don’t just stop at the quotas. They need to be accompanied by educational campaigns throughout society which emphasize the importance of having more women involved in not just society but in leadership positions. So that the mindset stays. Parties change, power shifts and states get upended.It’s the mindset that endures in the end. If a feminist idea of society is normalized and a young man does not balk at the idea of being led by a female general in combat, then your society has achieved an enduring win against gender inequality.I should also point out that the target audience of such reeducation must not only be the men of a society, but the women themselves as well. Too often do women become their own instruments of oppression because of the patriarchal mentality thats engrained into them from a young age. They are raised to believe they must be passive, focus on their looks and be submissive to men in order to be likeable. They are encouraged to shun other women who do not adhere to traditional, patriarchal definitions of femininity.It is imperative that our society break this mentality by telling our young women that they must be willing and ready to lead. That they are free to define what it means to be a woman themselves but at the same time they must balance that with the requirements of leadership. That it is their right to lead both men and women from top offices in the country. If they want to bring their own style of leadership, they are free to do so as long as it delivers results. They are free to be tough, aggressive, loud and combatative if they feel the situation requires it.Thus, our education must stress to both genders that women are free to define what it means to be feminine but also, women leadership is a right and a requirement in all top offices within our country. Lack of female leadership will hold the country back, waste half of our human talent and cut us off from the potential that female leaders can bring to the work place.A few interesting examplesIf you look at the Data across the spectrum you get some pretty interesting results.Law enforcement compositionSource: Share of female police officers for selected countries 2012 | Statistic2. Law enforcement top slotsSource:http://ispc.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/ms_-_institut_de_seguretat_publica_de_catalunya/04_recerca_i_cooperacio_internacional/Estudis-ispc/women_in_police_services/women_in_police_services_eu_2012.pdfMilitary serviceWomen in the military by country - Wikipedia% of female managersThe Countries With the Most Women Managers Worldwide% of female managersThe Countries With the Most Women Managers WorldwideWomen in Senior management:Countries With the Highest Number of Female ExecutivesCabinet positions typically held by womenhttps://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2017-03/women-in-politics-2017?utm_source=Inter-Parliamentary+Union+%28IPU%29&utm_campaign=550dedbec7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d1ccee59b3-550dedbec7-258891957Where are the women leaders?Political participation by women (Blueish hazes being most and Red/Green/Yellowish being least)https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2017-03/women-in-politics-2017?utm_source=Inter-Parliamentary+Union+%28IPU%29&utm_campaign=550dedbec7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d1ccee59b3-550dedbec7-258891957Analysis of the examplesWe see a few key points that elaborate what we discussed here:It’s easier to get women involved in government organizations through quotas and laws than compared to the private sector. Sweden has high levels of representation for women in government posts, but comparatively low in private sector.Countries like Jamaica score very high in private sector management by women due to women having much better criminal records, educational and academic achievements and structured lifestyles vis a vis their male peers. Articles describe how education and law abiding lifestyles are derided as feminine in certain musical subcultures in the country with the result that women make better hires than men.( Jamaica has more female bosses than anywhere in the world). It’s possible this is also the reason why Russia has high levels of female representation in upper private sector levels as women tend to have better criminal records, structured lifestyles, hard work and educational achievements. If men in a society deem law abiding, education focused lifestyles as too “feminine” and not macho enough for them, women overtake them in the private sector.Backward countries like Pakistan ironically have very progressive policies for women in the military due to the constant warlike state they take and their military competition with India which forces them to expand their talent pools and tap into the country’s women. We have seen similar things in the World Wars where military pressures on male demographics forced governments to tap into female labor and lead to female empowerment. The military could lead the way in female empowerment in the country and indeed, Pakistan is one of the few Muslim countries to boast female fighter pilots, combat troops, commandos and generals. Algeria too is promoting women to the rank of general under pressure from regional instability, insurgency and regime change and this is an example of external pressure and threat forcing women into power.You can have a female head of state and still not be a good country for women due to the “token female head” or hereditary politics phenomena. Power needs to be held across the board in multiple institutions and multiple depths as talked about before.Female entrepreneurship and business startups are one of the catalysts to having more women in power in the private sector which is more resistant than the government in hiring women to top levels. The Bangladeshi Garmeen bank tapped into this by giving micro loans to women of a household rather than men as they were more financially responsible and invested in long term gains compared to men. Latin American and African countries with strong female managerial representation have similarly strong entrepreneurial environments. The US also scores high due to its free market capitalist policies. Female entrepreneurship is definitely one way the government can achieve private sector representation for women, besides having laws that require female representation.As i suspected, women are shunted into low risk cabinet positions in cabinets. We see similar themes in other organizations too (medical in the military, HR and client relationships in corporate, female police to handle female rioters and criminals in conservative nations etc). Every organization tends to coral women into supportive roles while keeping core decision making positions for men themselves. Hence the earlier call in my answer for across the board representation of women in all power institutions on multiple levels.A critical part of the battle is in the education sector. A lot of the tech and engineering circles tend to create environments not exactly welcoming to women. Similarly, men can refuse to take up roles that they associate as traditionally being filled by women (nursing, kindergarten etc). Addressing the skew is a big problem and quite controversial. In Pakistani society, a woman’s chance of getting married to a good household are boosted if she is a doctor with the result that many parents send their daughters to med school who then prefer to become housewife and not practice their medicine. Which creates the problem that many male candidates who DO want to get into med school and practice cannot. Female candidates also do not want to go practice in rural areas where medical care is most urgently required. Female med candidates also have higher test scores so get admission more frequently. The government is attempting to address this by putting an upper cap on female candidates to med school and trying to redirect some of them to engineering jobs with low field work (Muslim conservative society problems) like software engineering, mathematical research and electronics. Similarly, male medical candidates might soon have quotas for them in med school as the government needs male doctors willing to work in rural and remote areas.Final thoughtsI’m glad i managed to learn at least one thing during my younger days as a Marxist: There’s a difference between reducing the Gender Gap and actually giving power to women.Everyone's OK with Gender gap stuff like the pay gap and female enrollment and female literacy. These are nice improvements which make a country better and stronger while not challenging the traditional power structure of society.My own understanding, based on Marxism, is that it is the sexual control of women and the control of women’s labour that is the seat of patriarchy. Women produce children but they also produce labour: outside the home and within where she fulfils multiple roles of wife and mother, teacher, cook, cleaner, washerwoman.Nighat Said Khan, Interview with Dawn Herald, March 8 2017The sole voice: Women's rights activist, Nighat Said KhanEveryone is OK with using women as labor so their empowerment within strictly labor oriented terms is encouraged to make the workforce more productive. So their education, health and employment falls within the gambit of Marxist social engineering.But here’s the question: If the workers conducted a revolution and seized the institutions of power and production in order to break down the traditional structure of society which oppressed them…shouldn’t that same logic apply to women as well if they fail to get leadership positions within a Marxist state?If the workers rebelled and seized power to have control over their means of power and production and they did this by seizing institutions of power, then if women are denied similar leadership positions within a Marxist state, then they have been betrayed and must wage a similar struggle of their own in order to ensure their empowerment and break from structures of oppression.The other day, one of our drivers told me during a conversation that he always avoided staring at women in a certain sector of the capital with lots of government offices. I asked him why that was and he replied: “You never know which of those women might turn out to be an officer rather than a common person. If you stare at the wrong one or smile at her, she’ll drag your ass”The shifting of power between genders is perhaps the hardest but most critical indicator of whether or not the gender gap is being reduced or not. And the only one that promises some relief to the women in our country.As for my fellow country women, i would urge you to be involved in this effort and give us your own insight here as well. It’s your voice that’s more important than mine on this issue. We need not accept the scraps our traditional power structure deem fit to throw at us from time to time. Only through a radical and sustained effort on our part will result in any change to our current abysmal ranking.