That's from 2011. I'm using the most recent statistics from 2015.
Dude, you really completely and utterly clueless here.
1) You're not citing the most current data for Fraser. You're citing data from a completely source, which I already explained in depth in my previous post. Your entire argument is nothing more than an appeal to dubious authority. Not only have you given everyone ZERO reason to take your authority seriously (after being asked repeatedly), but you're now establishing that you yourself don't take your authorities seriously if you can't even pay attention to who these different organizations are after the differences have already been explained to you.
2) You're proving my goddamned point. Economic Freedom Indexes from competing libertarian institutions barely correlate with each other. If the data isn't trustworthy to begin with, then there's no point to taking it seriously. And obviously, you yourself don't take the data very seriously, if you don't know the difference between Heritage and Fraser.
3) The most current data from Fraser is a 2014 report using 2012 data.. The source I cited was 2011 data in the 2013 report, a difference of only one year. UAE drops down by a single place, from #5 to #6. Their actual score drops down from 8.07 to 8.05, which is completely insignificant.
4) Why the fuck should a difference of one year even matter? I'm not asking that as a hypothetical "Well, it could make a difference if we imagine the following scenario." I'm asking you in literal terms, what difference does one year make in the context of UAE? If the argument is that economic freedom indexes correlate to gender equality, then this correlation should hold true regardless of the year. So unless you're saying that the public stoning of women was only a recent trend that wasn't true in 2011 at the time that Fraser gave them a high ranking, your entire argument is worthless.
Then you claimed you wanted a more modern example of laws that reduced women's economic rights?
No, I'm looking for a modern example where libertarianism is the answer for women's rights, because that's the entire point of the goddamned thread. If you're here to debate that letting women to women own property was good for women, then not a single person disagrees with that. If you're here to debate that a proposed deregulation will help women in the future, then give us a specific example of a proposed deregulation.
Even based on the United Nations Human Development Report the UAE still falls in the category of "Very high human development".
"The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank countries into four tiers of human development."
The subject is gender equality, dude. Not education level or life expectancy.
Women who choose not to stay home in the Nordic countries will have more difficulty reaching career heights than women in the United States.
For which libertarians have zero actual solution other than "Let's circlejerk to the invisible hand and hope the problem fixes itself."
Yeah, by 3%. That's a far cry from 11% for those with disabilities.
Yeah, no shit. If a budget cuts force the boss to cut employees, then the disabled people are getting cut first. This has nothing to do with the ADA creating burdens (which you have presented ZERO data for), and everything to do with basic human nature.
Wow, aren't those goal posts getting heavy?
Nope. I'm asking you for an example of a problem that modern libertarians can actually fix.
If that's too heavy for you, it's because modern libertarianism is fucking useless.
Maybe you should quit moving them so much
Maybe you should quit being a goddamned liar. I was clear on what the goalpost was from day #1, long before you even brigaded the thread.
I'm not the one trying to move the goalpost back. You're the one trying to move the goalpost closer. Instead of giving me an example of what the free market could be doing right now, your only specific example (that I provided, not you) has been "hey, letting women own property hundreds of years ago was a good idea, right?"
Germany, which had a very generous paid family leave law, shows it failed to keep women in the labor force.
Is that because women aren't allowed to work, or because they aren't choosing work? Because no one is saying that women should be forced to work in the office even if they they don't want to. That's just stupid.
Married women are currently taxed more heavily than single women in many countries
Does this apply only to women, or does it also apply to men? Because if the latter, then that's not a gender equality issue.