Article content continued

The latter is the distillation of four factors: the employment rate, the full-time employment rate, the number of people living below the low-income measure after tax, and the median employment income, each expressed in terms of equality between men and women. Of the 25 cities measured, Edmonton finished 19th, 14th, 18th and 24th, respectively — which is to say that in each category there was a relatively large gap between male and female outcomes.

Does that make Edmonton a “bad place to be a woman”?

Before answering, you may want to consider that at time of measurement, only three cities (Calgary, Gatineau, Regina) had a higher female employment rate; that only one city (Regina) had a higher full-time female employment rate; that only women in Calgary, Regina, Ottawa and Gatineau had a higher median employment income; and that fewer women in Edmonton (and Calgary, tied) live below the low-income line than in any other city in Canada. (Calgary finished third-last in the rankings, overall.)

In other words, if you’re a person who cares about things like having a full-time job and money, and not being poor, you might say that Edmonton is one of the very best places to be a woman in Canada. Inequality matters, absolutely. But rational human beings, advised of said Edmontonian inequalities, would consider them against other priorities. For example, they might measure London, Ont.’s, first-place score on economic matters against the fact that its employment and full-time employment rates for women are nine and 11 points lower, respectively, than Edmonton’s; that the median female income earner makes almost $5,000 less than in Edmonton; and that more than three times as many women live under the low-income measure than in Edmonton.