The report also shows how women are disproportionately affected by inequality – of the current ‘62’, 53 are men and just nine are women.
I don't think that you can claim that the part before the hyphen follows from the part after the hyphen.
I don't think that you can claim that the part before the hyphen follows from the part after the hyphen.
So it sound like we should cheer that so few women are billionaires in the spirit of supporting equality?
The reason women are generally more affected by wealth inequality (i.e. why more women are poorer) is that women generally perform more unpaid labor (e.g. in traditional mixed gender couples, women typically perform a larger share of domestic duties and spend more time raising and nurturing children than men).
For a less obvious example: my grandfather was a homeopathic practitioner and when his wife wasn't doing chores or looking after their daughter she would help in the practice as an unpaid assistant. As she had never formally been an employee and thus never paid into the federal pension fund, she ended up on welfare when he died and left her without any savings. We had to teach her the basics of banking after his death because he had always insisted on managing the family finances and insurances. This may sound absurd and careless by modern standards but was culturally normal when they were young. In fact, married women only gained the right to seek employment without the permission of their husbands during her lifetime.
If a couple is married, it is not effectivly unpaid if the other part can work becouse of the unpaid labour.
The main problem I see is that the woman's carrier might suffer which would be a problem in the event of a divorce.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...
This mostly seems to get used to excuse obvious sexism, when it could be spun the other way, women may be the safe choice and we should expect some men to be poor and useless and there's nothing we can do to help them.
In this specific case, I think the commenter is technically correct, but also wrong on the big picture.
But they are also factually correct that women suffer more from the inequality, this may even be explored more fully in the report.
Maybe a bit off-topic, but when i read on X-linked gen defects, i found they are not symmetric between the sexes. There are things like red-green blindness that almost exclusively affects men, while women are conductors (in their genes but its not affecting them). Haemophilia is another example. So there is a class of properties that predominantly show up in men, and this might also include properties that result in greater or lesser intelligence or abilities.
This is such an obvious explanation for the greater male variability hypothesis that i think i'm making some dumb mistake here. I'm not a biologist after all. Do we have someone here that can do a plausibility check on it?