Full stats show it’s not a woman’s world just yet

Academic cherry-picks his evidence, Travis LaCroix says.

I take it academics have a responsibility to accurately distribute data in popular media.

Most people are not academics, and do not necessarily have the time or desire to search out accurate information; most people do not follow up on what they see on social media, but defer to the experts.

Lo and behold, David Millard Haskell is a social scientist, he works at Wilfred Laurier University, he has a PhD — a signal that we should trust his opinion.

But the data he cites is grossly inaccurate when taken out of context. And the context in which he takes it is supposed to support his general point that the future (or the present, even) is unfair to men.

For example, Haskell says “males are three times more likely to commit suicide than females.” Indeed, Statistics Canada highlights a variety of suicide statistics, with the majority of data being derived from the Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database.

He uses this statistic to imply it is wrong or unfair that “a review of existing suicide prevention programs conducted by American psychologists Emma Hamilton and Bonnie Klimes-Dougan found current methods are more suited to women.”

What Haskell fails to point out is that though suicide rates are higher among men, women are twice as likely to attempt suicide.

When this statistic is taken in context, we see it makes sense for suicide prevention programs to be more suited to women, since women are more likely to attempt suicide.

Haskell cites Statistics Canada as saying males are 40 per cent more likely to drop out of high school than females. However, he does not point out the disparity between the territories and the rest of Canada: Graduation rates in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon range from 35 per cent to 65 per cent, as compared with graduation rates of more than 80 in other parts of Canada — regardless of gender.

Specifically, Statistics Canada emphasizes that, though being male is associated with dropping out of high school, so are parents’ educational attainment, siblings’ educational attainment, having family responsibilities and so on. Note, also, that males tend to have more outside options available to them in many of these cases.

Haskell points out that “males now only comprise 40 per cent of university students,” but fails to add only 39 per cent of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates are female.

This additional statistic puts into context his claim that “few school boards have initiatives focused on assisting males while most have specific programs dedicated to helping girls succeed academically, especially in the (STEM) fields.”

Haskell goes on to say there is an apparent hiring bias in STEM careers — again, the tone is that there should not be. However, he fails to note Statistics Canada also reports that (as of 2014) women account for only 22 per cent of individuals working in STEM fields, and when they do get hired, they earn only 85 cents for every dollar their male counterpart earns.

Either Haskell is aware of these additional statistics, or he is not. I am not sure which is worse. But by inaccurately distributing skewed statistics to support his claims, he has done a disservice to the public.

He concludes by saying, “If you have sons, you should let them know that the future really is female and, if current trends persist, it won’t be fair.”

When we see a bigger picture of the statistics he has presented, it becomes apparent that, for him, “fair” must mean “in favour of men.” In this case, no: The future will not be “fair” toward men, nor should it be.

The data he (Haskell) cites is grossly inaccurate when taken out of context.