What's the actual article? I get "Teaching women to fight today could stop rapes tomorrow". The string "60" doesn't appear anywhere...

Might be an issue with infinite scrolling on the Quartz site, works fine on my machine. Try this if the above link doesn't work for you: http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/

Try this if the original link doesn't work for you: http://data.qz.com/2014/qz-sexmap/

I think the sites dependent on flash or something. I thought it was just a bad headline until I saw some commenters mentioning article details, so I tried multiple browsers until one worked.

I've seen three different articles at that link so far. The latest is "Apple is setting itself up for a giant iPad." Is QZ just broken?

EDIT: Now it's showing "Picasso = Genius". At the top the embedded link says "http://qz.com/335183 ", which matches the URL, but at the bottom it says "http://qz.com/425662 ". Very confusing.

The downvotes in this thread are hilarious, it's like downvoting as a proxy for "Works for Me."

I had the same thing, then I tried in incognito and it worked. Probably adblocker or something.

Oh yeah, it works in incognito.

Is there a place where we can actually read the article? That site is very broken in my browser. I cannot scroll past the first few lines - the articles don't scroll independently.

Edit: seems to be fixed now.

I found this sentence confusing or misleading,

> In 1961, the earliest year the World Bank provides data for, the world was within 0.09 percentage points of a perfectly equal distribution. Ever since, the gap has widened; now men outnumber women on the planet by almost 60 million.

It jumps from a percentage to an absolute number. What was the absolute number before? What is the percentage after?

The reason I chose to mix the two was that comparing absolute numbers wouldn't be accurate since it would be distorted by overall population growth. That leaves you with comparing the percentages. In 2013, women accounted for 49.59% of all people, so that's .41 off a perfectly equal distribution. Yet .41 percentage points doesn't really give a good impression of what that actually means, while 60 million is a number readers can relate to more easily.

Whenever I see an article swap units mid-sentence it automatically makes me think they are doing it to bolster their argument because if they kept the same units, it wouldn't actually show what they wanted it to.

Yep, that's often true. Still think it's fair in this case, for the reasons explained above. 60 million are A LOT of people.

It's an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise excellent article, imo. Could instead mention percentages before and after, then stress the absolute number to get across the 60M figure.

Ok, point taken.

I'm not ripping on you at all, it's an interesting article. Just wanted to provide some feedback. I'm a scientist by training and was taught early on the tricks that many papers use to make something seem big when it really isn't.