News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
Large difference in employment rates between men and women!
If you compare the employment rates in EU regions, you will notice that the female employment rates still lag behind the male rates in most of the regions.
The EU has set a policy target in this area of halving the gender employment gap from 11.7% in 2019 to 5.8% by 2030.
The green regions shown here are those that have already attained the target.
Source: Eurostat
Interesting that in Germany the East-West divide is very much visible, with the progressive womens role in the former GDR still resulting in good employment rates for women today, whereas countries like Poland with a strong ressurgence of catholicism fare much worse.
all the green areas in Germany have lower GDP than the yellow parts same with the green part in the Rheinland. And Berlin has a much higher GDP than the surrounding areas and is yellow. I donβt think itβs solely an effect of socialism.
Why would a lower GDP be indicative of more people working? wouldnt it be the other way round.
Also the social infrastructure in many areas of western Germany is terrible. Many friends of me said that it was simply impossible to get a daycare for the children, or daycare was only until 1 pm and no lunch so the mother had to be at home cooking and could only work part time.
Maybe lower GDP could also cause that the salaries are lower and thus families canβt afford to live on one salary.
That could be a reason. One the other hand the cost of living is also higher, albeit not as proportionate and the generational wealth is much lower in the east. Usually a high or low GDP are also correlated with unemployment.
For the GDP i'd say it is difficult to gauge, whether it is a positive or negative factor on womens employment. For cultural and social infrastructure these effects are well documented.
True but what is the connection between higher GDP and women not working? Also what green part in Rheinland? Berlin could be explained by higher ratio of immigrants and their different family structures.
Also what green part in Rheinland?
They meant Belgium. Sorry, old German habit.
/s
Franconia, my favorite 15th district of the GDR /s
Just fuck colorblind people in particular.
i mean. Who the fuck has thought:" yes thats a perfect contrast for the two sides of the scale"
Sorry for your blindness but green to red are very standard range colors for numerous things. Weather, heatmaps, elevation... What do you do for those?
What do you do for those?
I complain about them.
We are living in the year 2023.
Colorblind friendly palettes are not non existend.
https://davidmathlogic.com/colorblind/
Eurostat is an agency doing plots as their business. Professionals should think about coloring.
Sorry for your gender gap but it is very standard for numerous things: employment, academic success, life expectancy... What do you do for those?
Talk about it so that people are aware of the problem and do something about it.
Just curious, but do the filters found in accessibility on most phones work at all to visualize this type of graphics?
Based on my experience...
No.
I dont really know why. But the thing is those filters tend to "stretch" the colorspace to make the blind colors visible.
However what would really be necessary is to create contrary contrasts.
Thumbs up. Thanks for the reminder.
FWIW heatmaps often use blue (cold) to red (hot).
Yes.
Or simply do black/white.
You dont need such non contrast color scales.
The max/min colors are based on their rgb:
85/15/25 %
Vs.
15/30/20 %
Does anyome really think that little shift in the red space is making a lot of contrast?
I question the assumption behind this map, which is the idea that men and women must have work at the same rate and anything else is an aberration that needs to be addressed. The issue is more subtle than that.
I'll speak from the perspective of a father who quit his job to raise his small children, knowing that it is complete career suicide (I worked in tech).
In my view a problem occurs when somebody wants to work and is unable to, as well as when somebody wants to quit working and is also unable to do so. And while there are some general trends where for example women often quit (paid) work for a few years to raise their families, that is only a problem when they would rather not, but this simplistic map (and narrative) doesn't shed any light on that.
Likewise, how many fathers out there would love to raise their small kids but don't because they know they will be destroying their careers to a degree that their female peers will not? This map does capture this issue, but the simplistic narrative that women sacrifice their careers to raise their children does not, when in practice the damage to their career is much less than a man doing the same thing.
Want a useful map? Poll people to find out why they are working instead of quitting, rather than having preconceived simplistic assumptions about what "is right".
Is this EVERYONE who is unemployed, or everyone who is seeking employment but is currently unemployed?
According to the subtitle, this map shows total employment rates irrespective of any other factors.
So, a very misleading map. Why calculate "gender employment gap" based on "how many people are working" without factoring in anything else?
Because it is a good way of measuring gender equality. Basicly it shows how many women stay at home as housewives. Also it takes age into account, so women just living longer and therefore being a majority of pensioners is not an issue.
How does it measure equality though? Like, what does being a housewife have to do with equality? Are you assuming that the majority of housewives in Europe actually want to be something else?
The majority of nurses are women for example. But is this because men are being discriminated against, or that men simply don't study nursing as often as women? Coming to equality arguments via a single statistic paints wrong pictures.
When you are a housewife you do not earn your own money and are depandend on your husband. That is also true for pensions, which often are paid out to the person, who actually did earn money. So if the relationship is in trouble, housewifes have a much harder time leaving their husbands then women who work. That means the relationship is naturally unequal with the husbands being in the stronger position.
Basicly you have to reason for that. One is outside forces. If men have an easier time finding jobs, then you have this situation. On the other hand it is how traditional a country is and well that only has indirect consequences on gender equality.
But I still find it fair to say that men do love their children, actually want to spend time with them and are perfectly capable of doing housework. No reason to presume husbands should be less willing to stay at home then women all other things being equal.
So if the relationship is in trouble, housewifes have a much harder time leaving their husbands then women who work. That means the relationship is naturally unequal with the husbands being in the stronger position.
Is that true? In developed countries parents who are the primary caregivers of children do not only get 50% of the assets in a divorce, but they also obtain alimony and financial support for their children, all paid for by the other parent. Even when both parents are working, the majority of judges give child custody to the mother.
In addition to that, there are women's shelters to cater specifically to women. Can you find even a single men-only shelter in your town, or a governmental agency that caters specifically to men in similar situations?
In other words, on average it is less difficult for a mother to divorce than for a father.
How is it misleading? If 90% of working age men are working and only 80% of women, that is a considerable gap and should be adressed. Now comes the step of analyzing the reasons and targeting those specifically.
But already assuming reasons to take out of calculation assumes them to be "good" reasons by default and removes them from being adressed.
How is it something that needs "adressing"? When people want to work, but can't, and there is a significant difference between men and women, then that probably needs to be looked at.
Simply seeing "in turkey, a country known for following more traditional ways of life, more men are working than women" is not very relevant.
Because work means income and income means having some control over your life, whereas not working for women often means dependency to stay with their husbands even if they dont want to or are subject to abuse.
A bit of number play:
Assuming men work continuously between the ages 20 and 64, and all women do so as well, except for a short time where they do not work at all, then 5% of unemployment means 26.4 months of not working. That's just over two years of difference in working time in this age range. A reasonable time to stay at home due to pregnancy and baby care in my opinion.
Why are you assuming it should only be women who take time off work due to child care? Sensible countries have equal parental leaves for both parents.
I don't. But I think pregnant women should not be expected to work.
In the dark green areas are there more women employed than men?
Yes.
the female employment rates still lag behind the male rates
I hope this is not seen as "women do not work as much as men" or it ignores unpaid care work:
Countries that do not have enough childcare facilities, such as kindergartens and schools that do not end in the middle of the day, rely on women not working full time. The same goes for care for the elderly and disabled, and then there is unpaid community work. On top of cultures that still think men should not do any care work or household chores.
Green countries do a lot to enable women to go to work full time, but still rely way too much on women accepting more of unpaid care work on top, than men. COVID was overcome a lot by putting even more unpaid work on women's shoulders, when childcare facilities and schools closed, it also showed how many families were relying on grandparents to take care of the children when these had to be protected and could not do this care work anymore.
Germany ist still divided, because in the East the women were very much needed as workers, so the DDR provided close by, free childcare facilities for every child, school was the whole day and they gave women one day of the month free from work because they realized they did more care work than the men and needed time for that too (it was a dictatorship and childcare was also used to indoctrinate the children, not painting the DDR in good light here, just looking to explain the divide), women also had good chances on the career ladder ...
In the West in the long years of the CDU being in the government, there was still the idea of you being a bad mother if you do not stay at home, childcare wasn't made available as much as needed and school ended mid day for most schools, not to mention not enough done to give woman equality in the work environment, but given a lot of incentive for women to be stay at home mums. Now the same party wants more women to work full time because our industry suffers and of course there is no word about their part in it being the way it is.
Does it account for maternal leave? What about part time employment?
WTF is going on in Spain?
Donβt know tell me.
Iβm not really sure that we should be inferring much based on the results on this map. It seems reasonable to me to make an argument that locations with a higher degree of religiosity tend to have less women in their workforce. Is that a problem for those people? I donβt know, Iβm not them.
My personal beliefs about the workforce have jack-shit to do with whatβs going on in highly religious countries.
Itβs not a problem if itβs a choice, but the question becomes whether it really is a choice.
Is it a choice if financial support means it is not possible to be equal without personal sacrifice. Is it a choice if there is societal pressure to conform. Is it a choice if male salaries are higher in general, and then self perpetuating. Is it a choice if there is no access to affordable or free childcare. Is it a choice if the father has no right to take parental leave?
Is it a choice if women are not allowed to drive, like in Saudi Arabia? Is it a choice to wear the burqa or niqab, like in Iran?
We shouldnβt confuse choices made under the guise of religion with personal choices people would make if religion wasnβt imposed in them. Sure, some would choose either way, but a more equitable society is a more free society. Some more religious countries used to have no divorce, so domestic violence persisted. People βchoseβ to stay with their abuser. When separation and divorce was legal, many chose to leave.
So if we make the assumption that itβs not by choice, who holds the responsibility to do something to correct it?
Well, the EU is asking the countries to try themselves....