Canada, a couple of quick facts on gender

I’m now adopting the habit of recording facts and their references so as to have quick access to them in the future.

From Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report.

(Note: there is no Men in Canada: A gender-based Statistical Report)

A slim female majority

Women and girls comprise just over half of Canada’s population. In 2010, 17.2 million females accounted for 50.4% of the total population, continuing a slim female majority that has held for over three decades (Table 1). In the data recorded from 1921 to 1971, the percentage of males was slightly higher than that of females. In 1921, 48.5% of the population was female, rising to 49.8% in 1971. Over the past century, gains in life expectancy have benefited women more than men. Lower mortality rates for females throughout most of the life course contributed to a slightly higher share of females than males in the population. According to the medium-growth scenario of the most recent population projections, the female majority would continue for the next 50 years.

In short: The gender ratio is nearly even, with woman having a tiny .4% advantage.

Age Distribution

The overall female and male age distributions in Canada were similar in 2010, with slim but perceptible differences between the youngest age groups and wider differences between the oldest age groups. For example, 48.6% of children under age 10 were girls and 51.4% were boys. In fact the sex ratio at birth, on average, is 105 boys born for every 100 girls. There were roughly equal proportions of females and males in the under-65 age groups in 2010. However, females’ greater life expectancy creates a growing disparity throughout the senior years, with women outnumbering men. For the total Canadian population aged 65 years and older, the proportion of women was 56% in 2010, increasing to 67% for those aged 85 and older and to 80% for centenarians. Since the late 1970s, however, gains in life expectancy have been more rapid for men than for women. If the gap in life expectancy continues to narrow, this could eventually result in a more balanced share of women and men in their senior years. See chapter on senior women for more information.

In short: more boys than girls are born, but females have a greater life expectancy, though men are slowly catching up.

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

5 thoughts on “Canada, a couple of quick facts on gender

  1. You missed the point where history starts in 1970.

    • Francis Roy says:

      I’m not sure I’m following your point. Can you clarify?

      • Feminist history generally starts about 1960, pretending as if recorded history starts in the 1960’s. If one takes a larger look at history, not just the past 50 years, so many of the claims just fall apart. It doesn’t have as much of an affect on the statistics you presented here, but the mentality is still present.

        If you consider things like “White Privilege” starting history in 1960 is a huge distortion. Whites are one of the most oppressed groups in history. Arabs where dominate for about 600 years. Blacks dominant for 800. The Ming Dynasty lasted well over a thousand years. Both the black and Arab empires farmed whites for slaves much as Whites did early in our dominance. White dominance has really only been around for about 300 years, with 6,000 years of recorded history this is a very short time. Whites have been farmed as slaves for three times as long as our reign of dominance. Whites are currently dominant, and there is significant racism against non-whites right now. But talking about how whites have been historically dominant is a gross distortion. Historically whites where slave races, but not if you start history in 1960.

      • Francis Roy says:

        I understand your point now. In regards to the two little snippets of the stats you were commenting on, I don’t think it’s relevant insofar as I was looking for what is now. To your larger point, I agree that issues of the day usually focus exclusively within our generation, and a more accurate picture, especially when referring to historical progression is important. That, however, is a book to be written (and would probably be a very interesting one), rather than pointing to two small snippets of hard, current data.

      • Yea, that’s just one of my pet annoyances. While the significance of this affect is trivial on the small snippets of hard current data you present, the mentality that creates this distortion is still apparent. It still annoys me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: