This hinges on how you define a matriarchy. Spain, as I pointed out earlier, has a majority female national leadership. If it isn't a matriarchy, one could still argue that's closer to a matriarchy than a patriarchy.
You insist that we don't have any matriarchies, yet my request for you to explain how you're choosing to define matriarchy remains unfulfilled.
> Ok... but that's true in India, the US... they are all varied cultures. You're just pointing holes in you argument really. I always said women equality and women participation in STEM is pretty random. Once again, you're really arguing against yourself. There is no correlation between women in STEM and women's rights.
The correlation between gender equality (of which women's rights is a component) is the core thesis of the article posted by OP: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
> Again. Because we don't have matriarchies. You really don't seem to grasp the concept. Please take a minute to think about it.
And why would we think that a matriarchy would have over 50% women in technology? As countries move away from patriarchy and towards gender equality the percentage of tech worker that are women go down. Why would one conclude from this that a matriarchy would see a majority of women in technology?
> Oh ok, I should clarify then. Some countries in Eastern Europe have similar rates as India. It does not change my argument one bit, except you win some semantic nonsense. I can rephrase my argument from before with "some Eastern European countries" instead. Will that change your mind?
Sure, some Eastern European countries have similar rates as India. And most do not.
Regardless, rather than examining individual regions how about we look at the world as a whole: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2018/02/S...
> Than why are you comparing these countries with the US's women participation rate in the workforce?! What does the US have to do with this?
You adjust for labor participation by selecting a baseline, and adjusting the other countries to match this baseline. Sure, I could have used any country for the baseline.
> Can you stop comparing things to the US? What's wrong with you? You're supposed to compare with men's labour participation rates, in the same country. I already told you this.
I am very confused as to what you're saying here. I am comparing women's labor participation rates with men's labor participation rates, in the same country. When I say that Chile has a female/male labor participation ratio of 0.657 it means 66 women work for every 100 men. By comparison the US has 82 women in the workforce for every 100 men.
So if Chile has 15% women in tech, and we want to know what this percentage would be if its female/male labor participation ratio was the same as the US we adjust for that: 15% * (.82 / .657) = 18.2%.
Why do you think that I'm not comparing women's labor participation rates with men? You do realize that the ratio of female to male labor participation is, fundamentally, comparing women and men's labor participation rates?
> 0.657 means only 65 of women work for every 100 men. How are you not getting this?
Again, what am I not getting?