From here: Female leaders make a real difference. Covid may be the proof Excerpt: 'Nuf said? Nevah ... ! PS: Do note that the countries mentioned above with female heads-of-state are all in northern Europe. Surprise, surprise!
From the above link: The Female Opportunity Index Must be the cold-climate? (No ... ? ;^) PS: And in case anyone is wondering where the US stands in the ranking? It is 48th! Yup, 48th! PPS: And France is 14th! Good for France!
I saw that "news" some month ago, It has already been shown to be a fake news, as there was no particular link between coronavirus infection and female leadership. Belgium had a female leader and one of the biggest infection rate, at the opposite Austria, Japan who didn't had any female leader performed quite well. There is two things in that : Cherry picking The fact that women led country tended to be more among the one who performed the best. In the same time, Spain got the cabinet with most women and was one who got with Italy one of the harshest episode of Coronavirus. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ters-11-pedro-sanchez-elections-a8388046.html In the same time, women are more likely to be leader in richer countries. Are we saying that richer countries are performing better against the corona ? What a revelation. Astonishing. I hope whoever got this revelation should get a nobel. I noticed however that the propaganda machine has worked well, and that plenty of people used that to says "women are superior being we should obey, here is the proof".
Correlation/causation fallacy. Given that there are female led countries that have high rates of COVID, and male led countries that have low rate, there is no actual indication that female led is better.
Why? Because the female heads-of-government CAUSED THE COVID DEATHS? And the male heads-of-government did not? Heads of government are not responsible for deaths. What they have done (in Europe) is try to get the people to wear masks. That worked more or less well depending upon the country. But that was all any leader could do. The deaths in each country are dependent upon the behaviour of the population. As regards enforcing anybody to obey the restrictions, all a country can do is fine-people who are walking about without a mask. If people want not to wear a mask, then there is nothing that a political-leadership can do. Nothing. I have witnessed in France the change of behaviour. I have a mask that I had shipped from the US in February because none could be found in France. Nobody was producing them in France, because they could not compete cost-wise with the Chinese. Finally, around March/April, The French government got some companies to establish a product-line that produced them ...
You are not reading very well it seems. The article linked is holding the premise that the low rates in the listed countries are because of the female leadership. But since there are countries with female leadership and high rates, that would then negate the idea that the leadership being female had anything to do with low rates. None of this has anything to do with the article or its claims. Red herring fallacy. The premise specifically dealt with whether the low rates were due to the leadership being female or not. Your point in bold above clearly supports the idea that it makes no difference if the leadership is male or female.
That’s a valid criticism... in small n studies. But the N36 is 100 countries making it large n. So long as p<.05 then the results should hold. Is P<.05?
Blah-blah-blah! Totally insignificant argument. The high-rates depend upon how you measure them. Which is far too often Mission Impossible because countries do not publish their national-accounting uniformly. So, it is Very Unwise to base any opinion upon what is seen in the numbers - and especially this year with Covid having raised its ugly-head. Yes, and so what? There have not been, in Europe, a significant amount of female tenures historically at the Head-of-state level. So, whatever one might say is quite irrelevant for the moment*. My intent was simply to underline this factor - which is key. Iow: Time will tell. It always does ... *And I am not forgetting Golda Meir who was an excellent PM in Israel, far better than the present shat-head in place. Israel has not had a decent PM since her. Methinks.
EVALUATING THE LONG-TERM EVOLUTION OF A NATION'S ECONOMY What is technically necessary to obtain is a good opinion of evolutionary economic-circumstances by means of a VERY long-term analysis of key-factors. If you can obtain them in an acceptable format making them time-wise comparable*! That is far more easily said than done. Whyzzat? Because, for instance, the US today is NOT the US of the 1980s. Whyzzat? Because it was in the 1990s that the Internet Event happened that changed significantly not only the way we live but where/how we work. That evolution in terms of economic-parameters was monumental! Nothing can ever again be the same. The US has lost its hefty dominance in Manufacturing and is now deeply into a Services-economy. For which a far higher educational attainment is essential. Or the world is going to leave Uncle Sam behind, regardless of its significant population ... *That's the hard part!
Don't know. Not my responsibility to support it. OP made the claim, he/she needs to show where there is valid and provide the proof there of. But showing p<.05 still doesn't automatically eliminate correlation/causation fallacy. So that proof needs to be submitted as well.
How so? Usually, dismissive type counters means that there isn't anything to support the point so the speaker has to attack something other than the basis of the argument, instead of just presenting a counter. I don't deny this, but that doesn't provide any kind of proof of causation between COVID rates and sex/gender of the country's leadership. This also holds true to the idea of claiming that being a female head of state is a cause for low rates. Thus supporting the point that the article is presenting a point under a correlation/causation fallacy in its claim that low rates are being caused because those leaders are female, and that male leadership is causing high rates. Nor am I, and at no point does any of my arguments based themselves up how good a leader is simply due to their sex/gender. There are good female leaders (Meir), and bad female leaders (Hillary). There are good male leaders (Churchill) and bad male leaders (Trump). And as noted earlier in the thread, since the rates are dependant upon the population's actions, the metric of the COVID rates alone do not indicate whether a leader is good or bad.
Full red herring. None of this has anything to do with the premise of the OP, which was low COVID rates are due to female leadership.
Once again, you are making simplest-statements about a subject (Economics) that have no real-content. In a subject that I happen to know rather well. You are welcome to bother someone else ...
...Yes it would because p<.05. We reject the null if p<.05 and say x causes y. In this case female leaders lead to fewer corona virus cases. You made the claim, now go look at the study and tell me what p is.
You've not dispelled the correlation/causation fallacy. Why are those women good leaders and other women bad leaders? Is it maybe the education or experience they received? Did that same or similar education and/or experience make the men who are good leaders such? If so then education and/or experience is the source of being a good leader, not being a woman, as the article claims.
So you’re saying there needs to be control variables... like it probably has. Go check the study to see what control variables it has. And while you’re there, tell me if p<.05.
It would help to know to which comment you are responding. In any case, there were no female leaders in Europe at the time that Covid broke out of Wuhan in December of last year. Those "leaders" today in Europe () made it to the BigTime just this year. As if saying, "Well, what the hell! The guys are getting nowhere! So why not try the females". Of course, there was an existing precedent heading the European Commission, but Ursula Van der laden was chosen and simply "OKed" by the EU parliament. She is doing a damn-fine job, and with any luck, if possible, they should start rearranging the helter-skelter politics of the European Union parliament in Strasbourg. But, I am not sure the EU is ready for that. Those elected to the EU-parliament have it "very good". They do little and they are damn-well paid! Their added-value nonetheless is to pass the EU-wide laws that the EU Commission says need passing. But the Commission is just an administration. It has no political power. It writes the laws that parliamentary-votes pass and the countries are obliged to implement. So, what is going on is two ladies from Germany are trying to get things done. One is Ursula and the other is the Chancellor of Germany - "Angela". The internal politics of the EU are "not funny". In fact, they are sickening, given what two outlying countries (Poland and Hungary) are trying to manipulate such that EU political management is a mess. And, so, well worth this read: EU Governance, Misfit, and the Partisan Logic of Domestic Adaptation that describes nicely the "mess in Strasbourg" because outlying countries like the money but not their "EU responsibilities" ...
I’m responding to Maquiscat about how they’re pointing out small n problems... while making large n claims. Now you’re right to bring this up because there aren’t a lot of countries with women running them. That’s fine but you also cite a large n analysis that I’m sure looked at that the same way and tried to control for that.
There is only ONE female head of a country in the European Union. That fact alone SAYS a lot in my book ... PS: Btw - I am a European taxpayer, so I am "involved" ...
I didn't put forth the OP. It is up to them, or you if you want to defend their assertion, to provide the proof. Assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence . Besides that, you are asking me to prove the negative, that the controls are not there.