Robert Kulak received his undergraduate degree in mathematics and economics and his graduate degree in insurance. An Air force veteran,he has consulted nationally and internationally in information systems. He has written international publications on subjects as diverse as political commentary,humor and healthcare. His articles are also regularly published on Examiner.com where he is the 'Hartford Independent Examiner

Ruminations, September 5, 2010

Men as victims of sexism

When Lawrence Summers (currently Director of the White House National Economic Council for President Obama) was President of Harvard, he ventured to suggest that there might be an innate difference between men and women and it should be investigated. Although the students supported Summers, the politically correct faculty did not and Summers was forced to resign. The faculty opined that there was no difference and any suggestion that the men and women were different was male chauvinism. Females were the obvious victims. 

Now that kind of Harvard-faculty thinking may be challenged. A study released last month by New York-based Reach Advisors, showed that unmarried women, ages 22-30 with no children, earn 8 percent more than men in the same age group in similar circumstances. The results were widely praised as a step forward for women. But is it?

For many years, the politically correct crowd has held to the proposition that that when men are paid more than women, it was discriminatory; equality in ability should result in equality of remuneration. If that is true, then maybe this latest statistic showing women earning more money is discrimination, too – but this time men are the victims.

And it bodes even worse for men. In higher education, a predictor of future earnings, today women are earning nearly 60 percent of college degrees and advanced degrees. (By race, the census shows that Black and Hispanic women are twice as likely as are Black or Hispanic men to earn college degrees). 

Is this just a natural turn of events or is something else at work?

Maybe it’s something else at work. According to the College Board that administers the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), boys and girls have the same grade point average in mathematics and yet, at the upper ranges of SAT scores, boys were represented over girls by a 2:1 ratio. If boys are represented 2:1 on objective tests, shouldn’t they have higher grade point averages? Don’t grade point averages ostensibly measure achievement? The difference in scores maybe attributable to the manner in which the scores are calculated; While the College Board testing mechanism is oblivious to the sex of the test–takers, the grade points assigned to the individuals are assigned by teachers who are well aware of the sex of the individual.

And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Some years ago in Europe, psychologists Wilberg and Lynn conducted a 26-nation study of the historical knowledge and the academic grades of 15-year-olds. The test results showed that the boys had higher mean scores but girls had higher class grades.

And it’s not only the paycheck where men are being short-changed. The ultimate metric is life expectancy, and women at birth are expected to live five years longer than men. If outcome-based results are the measurement that anti-discrimination folks use, shouldn’t we focus on men’s health over women’s health – at least until the life expectancy for both sexes is equal?

Of course there are those who disagree with the Harvard faculty and maintain that there are natural differences between men and women and many of the efforts to eliminate them represent nothing but political correctness run amok. It could be that these Harvard critics are on to something.

But regardless, there is one area where women clearly have an advantage that men cannot overcome. Women are just better looking.

When can we withdraw from Afghanistan?

If we leave Afghanistan next year, what do we leave? A nation in turmoil? A non-nation in some sense of stability? An area that is inhospitable to al Qaeda and their allies? What is Afghanistan, anyway?

Maybe some historic parallels could be instructive. Just as individual people mature into adulthood so do groups of people mature into modern nations. When Western Europeans arrived in America, they had a distinct advantage over the Native Americans in that European society was a more mature society. They had better technology, an economic system that advanced trade — and a political maturity that allowed them to think in terms of nation-states that could govern and make safe large swaths of territory. Today, America, Europe and most Asian nations have achieved comparable levels of maturity where we can understand each other and work together for the common good.

It wasn't always like this. In Europe, it took centuries to achieve the level of political and economic sophistication that exists today in the modern world (for lack of a better term). In order to get here, Europe had to endure tribal rivalries, ages of superstition and an illiterate peasantry that depended on powerful lords for protection. It took centuries to progress to where we are today. Part of the problem of advancement was that there was no viable model of the modern world that could have expedited their transition.

One of the factors that encouraged the maturation of the Western world was the evolution of a belief system that permitted a tolerant political and social order resulting from the reformation of Christianity and resolution of the attendant internecine battles that followed. In spite of the differences between the Shia, Sufis and the Sunni (and the shades of difference within each group), Islam has not reached the level of 16^th, 17^th or 18^th century Europe – and that works against Afghanistan more so that other Islamic majority nations because of the more tribal structure of its people.

Afghanistan is not a mature nation. It is not as mature as Iraq. It may take decades for Afghanistan to enter the modern world. This is not to say that we will have to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan throughout this transformation but if we truly want to leave an Afghanistan that is a viable nation-state, we (modern nations) will need to be involved beyond 2011 as a force for stability, economy and polity. 

This is a challenge that President Obama faces. Not only does he need to finesse the domestic political aspect of a July 2011 withdrawal date but he needs to make the “we” in Afghanistan more of a “we” to increasingly short-sighted and skeptical allies. At the same time, some other nations, specifically Russia and Iran, don’t want a resurgent Taliban to triumph in Afghanistan; but they do enjoy the increased political leverage that an embattled U.S. provides them.

Whether or not we leave Afghanistan in July 2011 is problematical. And if we do leave, what we leave will be up to the foreign policy maker-in-chief. We wish the President well.

Quote without comment

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in his memoir, A Journey, writing on the economy: “Ultimately the recovery will be led not by government but by industry, business and the creative ingenuity and enterprise of a people. If the measures you take in responding to the crisis diminish their incentives, curb their entrepreneurship, make them feel unsure about the climate in which they are working, the recovery becomes uncertain.”