“For Every 100 Girls…”

Many “studies” of “disparate impact” on various groups cite figures in the form “for every 100 …”, purporting to show “structural” discrimination against one group or another.  The alternative hypothesis that there may be fundamental differences among different groups is, of course, a “hate thought” which must be excluded from scholarly discourse.

Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute began posting a series of Web log posts on 2020-10-28 titled: “2020 Update: ‘For every 100 girls…’ ” showing differences between girls/women and boys/men in this form, summarised in the following chart.

For every 100 girls…

Here is Part II of the series, with additional source citations for items in the table.

21+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

Author: John Walker

Founder of Ratburger.org, Autodesk, Inc., and Marinchip Systems. Author of The Hacker's Diet. Creator of www.fourmilab.ch.

10 thoughts on ““For Every 100 Girls…””

  1. It is far past time we started beating on those XX, hard and long, to get those lower numbers down.  I want XY to end the grind of commute, sweat, anger, fist in the wall, commute.  I want XY to lie on the couch Prozactivated, with a fistful of red wine, fine high cacao chocolate or a Dove bar by his side, and languish through three afternoon hours of critical soap operas; then demand going out to a new place for dinner in new chinos and a new velour shirt.

    Go ahead, XX, tear your heart out supporting a family, then come home to “I have a headache.”  When you get off your pedestal you will be up to your chin in it with the rest of us.

    Mulieres taceat in ecclesia.
    Mulieres taceat in publicum.
    Mulieres taceat de mulieribus.

    And stop using my razor to shave your pits and legs.

    (BTW, the Google Maps distance legend and length difference of GPS coordinates are not sufficiently congruent within a neighborhood.  !!%$&*{^%!! – but no tears.)

    2+
    avataravatar
  2. We are in a post- facts & reason world. The partisan Left is uninterested in your mansplaining, white supremacist logic. As Zman observes,

    The partisans are an ends justifies the means mode of thought. They are unconstrained by rules or convention. In fact, they are not limited by what they said last week, as last week was a different time with different goals. In a world where winning is the only thing that matters, everything else bends to serve that end.

    One side gets to play dirty, while the other side tries to talk them out of it.

    For the partisan Left, gaining power by any means is all that matters. Your “truth” has no effect on them; they have their own truth that changes day by day.

    The partisans advance their positions on behalf of their cause, while the objectivists* fret about factual accuracy. In a democracy, objectivity is not a constituency, so the objectivists end up representing the interests of abstract concepts, rather than genuine people, which means the bulk of the people have no representative.

    Silence is violence. Your speech is violence. Leftist violence is free speech. The riots protests are mostly peaceful.


    *He doesn’t mean Ayn Rand fanboys.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  3. drlorentz:
    We are in a post- facts & reason world. The partisan Left is uninterested in your mansplaining, white supremacist logic. As Zman observes,

    The partisans are an ends justifies the means mode of thought. They are unconstrained by rules or convention. In fact, they are not limited by what they said last week, as last week was a different time with different goals. In a world where winning is the only thing that matters, everything else bends to serve that end.

    One side gets to play dirty, while the other side tries to talk them out of it.

    For the partisan Left, gaining power by any means is all that matters. Your “truth” has no effect on them; they have their own truth that changes day by day.

    The partisans advance their positions on behalf of their cause, while the objectivists* fret about factual accuracy. In a democracy, objectivity is not a constituency, so the objectivists end up representing the interests of abstract concepts, rather than genuine people, which means the bulk of the people have no representative.

    Silence is violence. Your speech is violence. Leftist violence is free speech. The riots protests are mostly peaceful.


    *He doesn’t mean Ayn Rand fanboys.

    OK, so the War On Boys is a Leftist thing.

    Agree that the partizans on the Left seek power.

    Do they have any underlying cause?  Do they war on boys simply because it is easier to convert girls into Leftists?  Or, is there something else at play?

    0

  4. MJBubba:
    Or, is there something else at play?

    Sure…a central dogma of their secular religion is, as expressed by Lenin in 1921, “Who, whom?

    This is a metaphor for class struggle of all kinds, and sees all human interaction as various kinds of struggles between powerful oppressors and subjugated victims.  Viewing things though this lens leads to seeing relations between the sexes in terms of “toxic masculinity” and “male oppression” which all champions of the oppressed must combat by bringing down the oppressors, in this case men or, in their larval form, boys.

    This is explicit in Marxist feminism, but has infiltrated feminists of all stripes and influenced so-called “gender equity” policies which, in fact, not only discriminate against boys, but are increasing an already substantial achievement gap versus girls.

    This doctrine was one of the reasons the Soviets were always boasting about the achievements of women in science, engineering, medicine, law, and politics while, in fact, the actual culture and institutions discriminated against them and kept them in their place.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  5. MJBubba:
    OK, so the War On Boys is a Leftist thing. Agree that the partizans on the Left seek power. Do they have any underlying cause?  Do they war on boys simply because it is easier to convert girls into Leftists?  Or, is there something else at play?

    Boys are their natural opponents. Males are more likely to favor facts and reason since they are more interested in things (including ideas) than in people. Males are lower in empathy, harm-avoidance, compliance, and agreeableness.

    Furthermore, as many have noted, the Left is dominated by females. Of course, there are males on the Left, but they are in subordinate roles. Even Biden recognizes that Harris is at the top of the ticket. Certainly, most voters see it that way.

    If your goal is power at all costs, elimination of the enemy is a key step. If some of your own must be sacrificed to friendly fire, so be it. You can’t make an omelette…

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  6. One more thing: Eric Hoffer pointed out (paraphrasing) a mass movement could survive without a god but not without a devil. White males are the devils for the Church of Woke. They have nothing positive to believe in but they sure have something to hate. The Left only has a negative identity.

    Edit: The Hoffer quote is “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.”

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

Leave a Reply