I posted today on a Swedish study that found that "gender equity was generally correlated with poorer health for both men and women." I now confess to a pernicious motive. I guessed that this might draw out my admirers at Dakota Women, who have been somewhat embarrassed to admit that they would talk to a Neanderthal like me. They took the bait. Lucretia Love has this:
Sorry, Ken, I don't think even this will send any
women into your, uh, friendly neanderthal arms.
My arms are full, Lucretia. But thank you for the concern. Ms. L. does not bother to respond to the post. She instead talks about Phyllis Schafly, of whom I am no admirer. But I got a second bite from Anna, who has this:
You have to give Ken Blanchard credit. He supports gender equity - except, of course, for the fact that it is throwing everyone in Sweden into an early grave. I mean, the reearchers are questioning their own conclusions and suddenly Blanchard is saying this needs to be "figured into any debates on that score." I am surprised SDP isn't blaming declining health in Sweden on the eeeeevilllls of socialized medicine! All of Scandinavia is practically Communist, after all.
It is not only the researchers who are questioning their own conclusions, I questioned them as well. I made it clear that I had doubts about the conclusions of the study, and that even if the results are confirmed this doesn't mean we should reject gender equity. As I anticipated, my cautions were ignored by DW.
Good social policy seldom comes without costs. This doesn't mean we should reject progress. It does mean that we should recognize the costs and take steps to deal with them. The Swedish study was an honest attempt to measure some of those costs. Dakota Women, apparently, isn't interested in honest measures. They only want to hear what they want to hear.
Recent Comments