But they’re nicer so why complain?

From Males Are Faring Much Worse Than Females: Busting the Myth of Male Privilege in a Single Chart.

The chart originates here. These are listed in the post:

4. There are hundreds of single-sex, girl-only summer (and other) STEM programs at universities all over the country that illegally discriminate against boys in violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination, including sex discrimination against males. More than 70 of those programs are currently being challenged for violating Title IX and more than 30 programs are now subject to federal investigations for civil rights violations. At least six of those programs have either been discontinued, supplemented with boy-only programs, or converted to co-ed programs open to students of all gender identities.

5. Multiple single-sex, girl-only computer science and STEM organizations that exclude boys including Girls Who CodeLatina Girls CodeBlack Girls CodeTechbridge Girls, and Project Scientist. Some of those programs are currently being legally challenged with complaints to the Office for Civil Rights when those programs are hosted on the campus of a university that receives federal financial assistance and is therefore required to enforce Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination.

6. There are Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE and similar names) departments or units at most major universities like the University of MichiganRochester Institute of TechnologySyracuse University. and Georgia Tech. There isn’t a single “Men in Science and Engineering” program in the country, and there are no “Men in Nursing” or “Men in Education” programs that address the under-representation of men in those academic fields.

Of course, there’s this as well: Why do women feel horrible about feminism? which comes with the sub-heading: “How did a movement that has achieved so much become so absurd and so vicious?” Here is one of the achievements which will help you gauge where this article is coming from.Greta Thunberg speaks during the UN Climate Action Summit in September. Picture: AFP

This month Time magazine named a 16-year-old girl as its Person of the Year. Again, you don’t have to like her. You may think her misguided. But Greta Thunberg is captain of a movement that seeks to change the whole world. She did not, as many expected, receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but Malala Yousafzai did in 2014 for standing up for girls’ education; and Nadia Murad did last year for her campaign against sexual violence.

Her final para is definitive:

Maybe we disagree now, as women, about the way forward, but do we really? Forward is the way forward. It has ­always been that way.

What could be clearer than that?

Giving the game away on the left’s views on inequality

I wrote on Ha-Joon Chang yesterday about his ignorant views on Say’s Law. Now let me turn to his views on inequality which have such a bizarre quality to them that it quite takes the breath away. Chang starts with a joke although it is a joke I don’t think he quite gets.

The peasant Ivan is jealous of his rival Boris, because Boris has a goat. A fairy comes along and offers Ivan a single wish. What does he wish for? That Boris’s goat should drop dead. (p 317)

But to Chang this is only a quasi-joke. It is more a tale of reality from which we should learn. Here’s the section heading that comes immediately after the above:

Ivan is not alone – the pursuit of equality as a driver of human history

And if you think he is being ironic in thinking this is a proper illustrative example of the ethic of equity, it is not in the slightest way part of his nature. He actually thinks that wanting what others have even if they worked for it and you haven’t is reasonable. He thinks it is reasonable for someone to prefer both peasants to be in misery when only one was before. Look what he writes:

Ivan is not alone. In Korea, there is a saying that you get a bellyache when your cousin buys a plot of land. And I am sure many readers know similar jokes or proverbs about people becoming irrationally jealous with other people doing better.

The pursuit of equality is a very natural human emotion and has been a powerful driver of human history. Equality was one of the ideals of the French Revolution, one of whose most famous mottos was ‘Liberté, égalité fraternité ou la mort’ (liberty, fraternity, brotherhood or death).

Although I have seldom come across such a repulsive sentiment stated in such an open way, what is startling is that he gives the socialist game away although in such a sordid fashion that it is almost too bizarre to realise he doesn’t understand what he has said. The others will have to get to him before he reveals too much more. It will have to be explained to him that one is supposed to seek equality because of one’s love of mankind, so that others can share the wealth, not because one is worm-eaten, bitter and envious when it is discovered that someone has more than you do, if only slightly more. He has actually spoken truly, has stated the socialist creed in all its fulness, but it is nevertheless astonishing to see it stated in print by one of the left’s leading lights.

He even goes on to sneer at this famous statement from Milton Friedman which I would have thought was almost a truism:

Most economic fallacies derive from … the tendency to assume there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another. (p 319 – his ellipsis)

This is, Chang says, an example of the belief in “trickle-down” economics, that the productive getting richer by producing things others want to buy helps the poor become better off by selling them what they would otherwise never be able to have.

And this is a man whose specialty is a development economist. If he doesn’t know that the rest of us only because reasonably well off because a few people have become wealthy by inventing products and producing them at affordable prices, he will do only harm in any country he is asked to provide advice. A world authority and at Cambridge yet (but then again, so was Keynes) he seems oblivious to the source of wealth, to why we are all immeasurably richer today than a century ago. An absolute clown but a perfect representation of the belief system of the left.