The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Cowen in NYT: "Why the Economic Gender Gap Will Eventually Close"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Tyler Cowen handwaves in the NYT:

Why the Economic Gender Gap Will Eventually Close

… As a former chess player, I am struck by the growing achievements of women in this great game — one in which men were once said to have an overwhelming intrinsic advantage. (Among the unproven contentions was that men were better at pattern recognition.) Although women were never barred from touching the chess pieces, strong female players were few in number.

These days, many more women play very well, and the gap between the top men and women in the game is narrowing.

But is that even happening anymore? The Polgar sisters were extremely impressive in their primes, and Judit Polgar was a legitimate top ten contender for a number of years. From Wikipedia:

Judit Polgár (born 23 July 1976) is a Hungarian chess grandmaster. She is by far the strongest female chess player in history.[1] In 1991, Polgár achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15 years and 4 months, at the time the youngest to have done so, breaking the record previously held by former World Champion Bobby Fischer. She is the only woman to qualify for a World Championship tournament, having done so in 2005. She is the first, and to date, only woman to have surpassed the 2700 ELO rating barrier, reaching a career peak rating of 2735 and peak world ranking of #8, both achieved in 2005. She has been the #1 rated woman in the world since 1989 (when she was 12 years old).

But Polgar recently retired, and Marginal Revolution commenter US claims that there is only one woman still in the world top 250:

The current best active female player is Yifan Hou (2663 elo, #87 on the fide rating list), the only active female player with a rating above 2600 (top ~250 or so).

My general impression of the career world is that young women rapidly narrowed career gaps in the 1970s, but not much has happened to gender gaps among young people at elite levels over the last 30 or so years.

(There’s a very different trend of downward drift among average and especially below average males, but that’s a pretty distinct trend from the static or widening gender gaps in the really good jobs, like in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. For example, no woman has ever been nominated for an Oscar for Best Cinematography.)

By the time I got my MBA in 1982, it was simply assumed that women could, would, and should go into virtually all corporate careers men went into. (The only word of caution I can recall being given to female MBA students at UCLA in 1980-82 was that ambitious women, especially gentile women, shouldn’t try for a career in Los Angeles department stores: you had to be a Jewish man to get to the top in L.A. department stores. Although I’m constantly reading news stories about discrimination in the Bad Old Days, for some reason I haven’t heard a single mention of that kind of bias in the 33 years since …)

I don’t see much change in the numbers for young people in the three decades since then. If there had been much change since then, there wouldn’t be the 2012-2014 hysteria about male privilege, would there?

Overall, I’m constantly struck by how elastic the past is to the Dominant Narrative. We’re out a couple of generations or so from the pre-feminist era, and yet the standard assumption behind most journalism on gender gaps is that it was only yesterday that young women were told they shouldn’t be trying for careers.

You know how people are always telling you that history is actually really interesting if you don’t worry about trivia like dates? Well, that’s not history, that’s just propaganda. History is dates. If you don’t know the date when something happened, you can’t do the single most obvious reality check on your theory of causation: if you claim that X caused Y, the minimum you need to know is that X came before Y, not afterwards.

 
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    More words of caution…

    “To any silly sanctimonious young liberal women reading…. You can not have it all. Life mandates priorities. Make yours meaningful. How many women I have met spending the fleeting bloom of their prime investing both passion and youth in marketing plans or corporate initiatives. What breathtaking folly. For the meager reward of “a career” they toil in sterile cube farms throughout their brief season of fertility. Shareholders grow wealthy as they grow barren. The exchange is contemptible.”

    http://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/how-to-turn-healthy-young-women-into-bitter-barren-harpies/

    • Replies: @casey
    It is sanctimonious and frankly immature crap like this comment and the insulting, insipid blog post it links to that really drags this website down, straight into the gutter.

    What we need is feminism + support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do.

    And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20's may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem? The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw.
  2. Although a short post, I thought this one was as powerful as a Ray Rice left hook.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Classic
  3. “I am struck by the growing achievements of women in this great game”

    Women have not been struck by it, which is why there is a still a “Women’s World Chess Championship” open to women only. What a vacuous twerp Cowen is. Or maybe I’m thinking of Caplan – they’re interchangeably silly.

  4. I know it’s fun to pick apart people like Cowen, but the simple truth is that he’s just not worth taking seriously.

  5. Reading the wikipedia page about Judit Polgar and her father, Laszlo Polgar, is about a laugh and a half.

    From Judit’s page:
    Polgár was born on 23 July 1976 in Budapest, to a Hungarian Jewish family.[6] Polgár and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age.[7] “Geniuses are made, not born”, was László’s thesis. He and his wife Klára educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject.

    From Laszlo’s page:
    Polgár said in 1992 that he now wanted “to break the racial barriers in the virtually all-white chess world” by adopting “a black infant from the Third World” whom he would train to become a chess prodigy.[2] Susan recalled in 2005 that, about 15 years earlier, “a very nice Dutch billionaire named Joop van Oosterom” had offered to help Polgár “adopt three boys from a developing country and raise them exactly as they raised us.” Polgár, according to Susan, “really wanted to do it, but my mother talked him out of it. She understood that life is not only about chess, and that all the rest would fall on her lap.”[5]

    Yeah, really too bad that we only have one black (Jamaican, presumably mulatto) chess grandmaster because he couldn’t carry out this experiment!

  6. So what’s with Cowen? He explicitly accepted HBD in his review of Nicholas Wade’s book. But he says that it’s “depressing” that men and women behave differently in a game theory setting. Why is it depressing? Why must men and women behave the same on average in any given situation for us not to be “depressing”? What I find depressing is those who dream of an androgynous world.

  7. I haven’t heard a single mention of that kind of bias in the 33 years since

    This was a big plot point in the pilot for “Mad Men,” itself a good example of the Timex-drab aesthetic of L.A. Jewelry District retailers

  8. Although none has caught up with Judit, three younger women have surpassed Susan Polgar, as you can see from the blog post Cowen linked. It looks like progress to me, just not dramatic.

  9. @EriK
    Although a short post, I thought this one was as powerful as a Ray Rice left hook.

    Classic

  10. For someone who grew up in the heartland of the movie industry, Sailer, you sure are deluded if you think that it’s meritocratic and that the best rise to the top. There isn’t an industry or human endeavour in America that’s less meritocratic and purely based on Who You Know than the film industry.

  11. The gender gap in chess doesn’t seem to be closing at all.

    Everyone always talks about J. Polgar’s ONE victory over Kasparov, but they tend to omit the fact that Kasparov has beaten her 12 times.

    She has also beaten former world champ Vladimir Kramnik–exactly once. But Kramnik has beaten her 23 times.

    She has also beaten current champ Magnus Carlsen–once. Carlsen has beaten her 11 times.

    And this is “by far” the best woman chess player ever.

    By the way, none of Polgar’s victories mentioned above have been games with “classical” time controls. They’re all in blitz/rapid games where upsets are relatively common because the time pressure tends to force mistakes.

    Women playing chess isn’t a new trend either. The Women’s World Chess Championship has been a thing since 1927. A LOT of women in the Soviet Bloc played the game.

  12. Jamelle Bowie(sp?) over at the SWPL e-zine was just saying how the AP History test is better now it doesn’t emphasize chronological dates (or emphasizes them in some New Coke way). He took the exam and everything. Anyway the story hook was his no-doubt-reliable reporting that prominent conservartivz, less studious than he, had been protesting the change– you know you’re a juiceboxer when you think “Republicans Criticize Textbook” is a fresh headline. Also the topic of slaves did come up at some point….

  13. Tyler,

    Read my lips and say after me: “We don’t like the same things men like.”

  14. @Anonymous
    More words of caution...

    "To any silly sanctimonious young liberal women reading.... You can not have it all. Life mandates priorities. Make yours meaningful. How many women I have met spending the fleeting bloom of their prime investing both passion and youth in marketing plans or corporate initiatives. What breathtaking folly. For the meager reward of “a career” they toil in sterile cube farms throughout their brief season of fertility. Shareholders grow wealthy as they grow barren. The exchange is contemptible."

    http://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/how-to-turn-healthy-young-women-into-bitter-barren-harpies/

    It is sanctimonious and frankly immature crap like this comment and the insulting, insipid blog post it links to that really drags this website down, straight into the gutter.

    What we need is feminism + support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do.

    And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20’s may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem? The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Anon is correct and you are wrong. Women want Alpha males. Mst women are cute enough in their twenties for sex with Alphas but not smoking hot enough to generate commitment. There are only a few Alphas.

    Thus most women toil in cube farms banging Alphas and maybe in desperation marry a beta male they have contemot for, on account of lack of sexiness. At around age 35 and thus have one kid, maybe or nit the beta males they married.

    Money does not enter into it, SEX does. Increased female earnings alliw single mtherhood. So that's a flaming red arrow that sex not money is the biggest determinant in childbearing.

    Apologes spelling, stupid tablet.
    , @gu
    "What we need is feminism"

    No.

    " support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do."

    Women cannot possibly "have families and pursue their careers just as men do" because men can do it through the help of their wives taking care of the kids. The same sstem would not work vice versa because women HATE the thought of marrying a man who doesn't make more money than them.

    "And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20′s may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem?"

    No, not really. Men not wanting to get married at that age is irrelevant because neither do women. Furthermore, men in their 30s can marry a younger woman just fine.

    Considering the hilarious divorce and family law, it's a suprise that there are men getting married in the first place. You want more men wanting marriage, maybe you should outlaw paternity fraud or introduce mandatory paternity testing. You know, the bare minimum to ensure that no men get screwed over.

    " The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw."

    Not wanting to get sucked dry (and not in a good way, IYKWIM) = Peter Pan. Got it. /sarcasm
  15. The ultimate feminist song of the 1970s, “I Am Strong, I Am Invincible, I Am Woman”

    Early signs of SWPL culture in the 1970s.

  16. Speaking of women’s achievements, just yesterday (literally in this case, September 13) during an exhibition game, Women’s National Team Goalie Hope Solo broke the record for career shutouts with 72, breaking the record held by Brianna Scurry of the 1999 Women’s World Cup victory fame. That game of course has a UCLA connection since the final was played at the Rose Bowl in front of about 80,000 spectators.

    Another observation for those who like soccer: Why is it that soccer keeps track of all stats set during exhibition games? In other words whatever a player does during an exhibition game, its actually counted among their career stats? This is nonsensical. Exhibition by its very definition means “it doesn’t count or mean anything”. This is ridiculous. Stop counting things done in exhibition games. They don’t count so obviously nothing else should during those games. No other sport tacks on a players exhibition stats for his total career numbers, not MLB, NFL, NBA, etc.

    If we counted every HR that Babe Ruth hit during spring training games and barnstorming games, he’d have well over 1,300 HRS for his career.

  17. “History is dates.”

    Thank you. And it irks me no end that modern history books seem to avoid mentioning dates now, so that I constantly have to leaf back to figure out what year the narrative is in.

  18. When one steps back for a moment, the absolute insanity of modern (leftist) thought truly does amaze.

    Leftism as politics–basically “the will to power”–is ancient and pretty understandable. Within about 45 seconds of the neolithic revolution there was some guy thinking, “Hey, i don’t have to be a peasant and scratch the dirt all day … i can just make all the peasants growing food, feed me!” Lords, nobles, kings, “court”, bureaucrats, armies, the police–and the ubiquitous taxman and the rent-seeker–quickly followed. Modern leftist states are just even more elaborately parasitic, with millions more court retainers on welfare. (A takes from B, gives to C, who is then grateful to … A! for taking care of him. And votes him more power to loot B.)

    However, leftism as ideology–to try and put lipstick on this pig–holy cow, what a pile of crap.

    Even the dumbest religious precepts can’t hold a candle to this insanity. Religious ideology was generally about supernatural stuff that is simply unknowable–or explaining “origins” that seemed unknowable at the time. What they generally didn’t do was stand fore square in the face of ordinary human experience and say “that’s crap!” (In fact, the successful religions basically reinforced some practical knowledge about how to organize folks lives to maintain civilization–not stealing, not murdering, sexual-restraint, monogamy, etc. If they didn’t ride along with a civilization they weren’t “successful”.)

    Ideologically modern leftism is knowledge destruction–encouraging people to *not* believe what simple observation (and now massive data) and common sense tells them. Take the entire humanities and social science faculties of modern universities, and combined, these folks know less about human nature than William Shakespeare. Given their incredible resources and the data they have to draw on–that’s quite a feat!

    • Replies: @Coemgen

    When one steps back for a moment, the absolute insanity of modern (leftist) thought truly does amaze.

    Leftism as politics–basically “the will to power”–is ancient and pretty understandable. Within about 45 seconds of the neolithic revolution there was some guy thinking, “Hey, i don’t have to be a peasant and scratch the dirt all day … i can just make all the peasants growing food, feed me!” Lords, nobles, kings, “court”, bureaucrats, armies, the police–and the ubiquitous taxman and the rent-seeker–quickly followed. Modern leftist states are just even more elaborately parasitic, with millions more court retainers on welfare. (A takes from B, gives to C, who is then grateful to … A! for taking care of him. And votes him more power to loot B.)

    However, leftism as ideology–to try and put lipstick on this pig–holy cow, what a pile of crap.

    Even the dumbest religious precepts can’t hold a candle to this insanity. Religious ideology was generally about supernatural stuff that is simply unknowable–or explaining “origins” that seemed unknowable at the time. What they generally didn’t do was stand fore square in the face of ordinary human experience and say “that’s crap!” (In fact, the successful religions basically reinforced some practical knowledge about how to organize folks lives to maintain civilization–not stealing, not murdering, sexual-restraint, monogamy, etc. If they didn’t ride along with a civilization they weren’t “successful”.)

    Ideologically modern leftism is knowledge destruction–encouraging people to *not* believe what simple observation (and now massive data) and common sense tells them. Take the entire humanities and social science faculties of modern universities, and combined, these folks know less about human nature than William Shakespeare. Given their incredible resources and the data they have to draw on–that’s quite a feat!
     
    Amen brother!
  19. Tyler Cowen is guilty of the bigotry of soft expectations for women.

  20. Somewhat OT, but transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox had a fight last night and “her” opponent Tamikka Brents suffered a concussion, broken orbital bone, and a gash requiring 7 staples in her head, all sustained in the first round.

    http://www.knucklejunkies.com/articles/CCCW_Eazelle_vs_Beebe_-_Event_Recap.php

    How far will they be able to push this transgender madness? Where is the feminist outcry over this man beating up women for a living?

  21. A wee bit off topic, but there’s a fascinating bunch of recordings of Fischer broadcasts from Manila. From AM sports radio there, of all things. The older he got, the wackier he got 😉

    http://bobbyfischerpage.tripod.com/

  22. Every good woman I know is married with children. Only the inferior ones concentrate on career.

  23. “Although I’m constantly reading news stories about discrimination in the Bad Old Days, for some reason I haven’t heard a single mention of that kind of bias in the 33 years since”

    Recently went to a ophthalmologist. While in the chair there was back-and-forth between ophthalmologist and the secretary. Mrs X in the waiting room said she was due a discount?? “Hmm, just put it down as a larger family discount” said the ophthalmologist. Full-fee paying me was not supposed to notice that exchange. My wife wanted to complain. I told her to behave.

  24. WhatEvvs [AKA "Cookies"] says:

    Hm, wonder how powerful Rice’s left hook would have been against someone of his own weight class?

    Re the Polgar sisters, they were a product of a stage father’s relentless drilling. Yeah, they were very smart, but their hearts were controlled by Daddy. They weren’t naturally occurring phenomena, like Fischer.

    About the pay gap, this illustrates how crazy things have gotten. People shouldn’t be measuring male/female pay gaps, as they do black/white, etc. Men & women should be pooling resources, not competing with each other.

  25. We’re out a couple of generations or so from the pre-feminist era, and yet the standard assumption behind most journalism on gender gaps is that it was only yesterday that young women were told they shouldn’t be trying for careers.

    A third of the workforce in 1957 was female (at a time when most women were married by their 21st birthday). Then as now clerical work was predominantly feminine and the trades predominantly masculine. What’s changed has been the distribution of professional-managerial occupations. You had a bloc of professional women (very few managers) in the United States 60 years ago as well, but the assumption then was that professional women were celibates.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    but the assumption then was that professional women were celibates.

    What do you mean by this? And how do you define professional women?
  26. @Yojimbo

    I know almost squat about soccer, but I do know that a lot of high-profile games are exhibition games, or “friendlies”, outside of league competition. Inter-league games, international games outside of tournament play, etc. So it might make sense that exhibition soccer games are taken more seriously by the record books, since the teams don’t treat them as a practice game for bench players and for trying out strategies and such.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    No, they do NOT count in the standings in ANY sense of the word, thus any and all stats should be nixed. All sports have exhibition games, MLB's all star game, while taken somewhat more seriously is still all in all an exhibition and the stats don't count.

    FACT: The US Men and Women's National Teams per their collective bargaining with US Soccer and perhaps with FIFA ultimately as well, are mandated by CBA to play so many exhibitions per year; in the off yrs (no Olympics, no WC) their pay is based mainly on these games.

    It's about the money, basically and how they earn their salaries accordingly. Which is fine but it would make better sense to have them playing for some new tournaments. There simply aren't enough from the USWNT perspective when compared to the FIFA men's side.
    And it still makes no sense whatsoever to count these exhibitions's stats toward the individual players National Team career.

    The stats that count are in the: Olympics, The World Cup, and any and all individual international tournaments (e.g. qualifiers for Olympics, WC, etc etc). And that is it.

    Perhaps they should greatly reduce the number of exhibitions period and increase or create new international tournaments, particularly in the out years of no WC/Olympics. That way, they create the demand that these games "count" and that the ultimate goal is to win a championship.

    In the mens game they probably have fewer friendlies since they have more international tournaments (Champions League, Euro, etc) and some of them are played every year.

    Nix the friendlies by 95-99% but you don't have to reduce the number of international games played. Just create a couple of international tournaments and have them play for a few more championships then what they're already doing (which in the out years, really isn't very much at all).

    There is precedent. After the 2011 Japanese tsunami the following year to raise money for relief victims the Japanese Womens national team hosted an actual tournament. It wasn't as long as some of the others but it was not a friendly, it was an actual tournament and it counted so to speak.

    It can be done. Reduce the number of friendlies and increase the number of games played in international tournaments and create a few new tourneys besides. Make them count for something and not just spit.

  27. Another Dad said, “Leftism as politics–basically “the will to power”–is ancient and pretty understandable. Lords, nobles, kings, “court”, bureaucrats, armies, the police–and the ubiquitous taxman and the rent-seeker–quickly followed. Modern leftist states are just even more elaborately parasitic, with millions more court retainers on welfare. (A takes from B, gives to C, who is then grateful to … A! for taking care of him. And votes him more power to loot B.) ”

    “Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”
    ― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

    Another Dad, I enjoyed your whole comment.

  28. @Art Deco
    We’re out a couple of generations or so from the pre-feminist era, and yet the standard assumption behind most journalism on gender gaps is that it was only yesterday that young women were told they shouldn’t be trying for careers.

    A third of the workforce in 1957 was female (at a time when most women were married by their 21st birthday). Then as now clerical work was predominantly feminine and the trades predominantly masculine. What's changed has been the distribution of professional-managerial occupations. You had a bloc of professional women (very few managers) in the United States 60 years ago as well, but the assumption then was that professional women were celibates.

    but the assumption then was that professional women were celibates.

    What do you mean by this? And how do you define professional women?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Women in well compensated bourgeois occupations (not subaltern and often certified or licensed) which do not incorporate line administration. By way of example was a crew of women with whom my mother was acquainted ca. 1952 in Boston, all then working at unremarkable jobs and sharing a house. Two got married and had children. Another worked her way into a job as a stockbroker and married late in life (and had children in her middle 30s), and the last was a life long spinster and ended her working days as a university law librarian (I do not believe she ever practiced law). These were all women born ca. 1929.
  29. “For someone who grew up in the heartland of the movie industry, Sailer, you sure are deluded if you think that it’s meritocratic and that the best rise to the top. There isn’t an industry or human endeavour in America that’s less meritocratic and purely based on Who You Know than the film industry.”

    This thread is about chess, and the gender gap; why are you bringing up the movie industry?

    And where has Steve said that the movie industry was meritocratic? Steve spends quite a bit of his time pointing out things that aren’t what they appear to be, including things which are allegedly meritocratic which are in fact not, and how people game the system to get ahead, and so on. I mean really, is this the first time you’ve read iSteve?

    In general, smart people do better at jobs requiring smarts than dumb people do, and yes some groups are better at certain things than other groups are. The gender gap is real; the black/white IQ gap is real, and so on. But Steve hasn’t said that just because these gaps are real, that ergo we live in a meritocratic society. He’s pointed out that we don’t live in a pure meritocracy for good HBD reasons; groups compete, evolutionary psychology shows that we aren’t atomized individuals living in a meritocratic system; we’re members of sometimes hostile, usually competitive groups who don’t always play nice with each other, and who seldom play according to the alleged “rules”.

    You’ve obviously confused Steve with your stereotypical IQ-fetishist, libertarian types who actually believe in meritocracy because they’re socially autistic. That ain’t Steve.

    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    Among many other passages in which Sailer wrote that the film industry is meritocratic, he wrote in this post: "the static or widening gender gaps in the really good jobs, like in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. For example, no woman has ever been nominated for an Oscar for Best Cinematography."

    As if the most talented people actually get the best jobs and are rewarded in such jobs, when in reality connections rule the roost.

    This is a common error Sailer makes, and he really should know better considering where he grew up and where he lives now.
  30. @casey
    It is sanctimonious and frankly immature crap like this comment and the insulting, insipid blog post it links to that really drags this website down, straight into the gutter.

    What we need is feminism + support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do.

    And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20's may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem? The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw.

    Anon is correct and you are wrong. Women want Alpha males. Mst women are cute enough in their twenties for sex with Alphas but not smoking hot enough to generate commitment. There are only a few Alphas.

    Thus most women toil in cube farms banging Alphas and maybe in desperation marry a beta male they have contemot for, on account of lack of sexiness. At around age 35 and thus have one kid, maybe or nit the beta males they married.

    Money does not enter into it, SEX does. Increased female earnings alliw single mtherhood. So that’s a flaming red arrow that sex not money is the biggest determinant in childbearing.

    Apologes spelling, stupid tablet.

  31. @Discordiax
    @Yojimbo

    I know almost squat about soccer, but I do know that a lot of high-profile games are exhibition games, or "friendlies", outside of league competition. Inter-league games, international games outside of tournament play, etc. So it might make sense that exhibition soccer games are taken more seriously by the record books, since the teams don't treat them as a practice game for bench players and for trying out strategies and such.

    No, they do NOT count in the standings in ANY sense of the word, thus any and all stats should be nixed. All sports have exhibition games, MLB’s all star game, while taken somewhat more seriously is still all in all an exhibition and the stats don’t count.

    FACT: The US Men and Women’s National Teams per their collective bargaining with US Soccer and perhaps with FIFA ultimately as well, are mandated by CBA to play so many exhibitions per year; in the off yrs (no Olympics, no WC) their pay is based mainly on these games.

    It’s about the money, basically and how they earn their salaries accordingly. Which is fine but it would make better sense to have them playing for some new tournaments. There simply aren’t enough from the USWNT perspective when compared to the FIFA men’s side.
    And it still makes no sense whatsoever to count these exhibitions’s stats toward the individual players National Team career.

    The stats that count are in the: Olympics, The World Cup, and any and all individual international tournaments (e.g. qualifiers for Olympics, WC, etc etc). And that is it.

    Perhaps they should greatly reduce the number of exhibitions period and increase or create new international tournaments, particularly in the out years of no WC/Olympics. That way, they create the demand that these games “count” and that the ultimate goal is to win a championship.

    In the mens game they probably have fewer friendlies since they have more international tournaments (Champions League, Euro, etc) and some of them are played every year.

    Nix the friendlies by 95-99% but you don’t have to reduce the number of international games played. Just create a couple of international tournaments and have them play for a few more championships then what they’re already doing (which in the out years, really isn’t very much at all).

    There is precedent. After the 2011 Japanese tsunami the following year to raise money for relief victims the Japanese Womens national team hosted an actual tournament. It wasn’t as long as some of the others but it was not a friendly, it was an actual tournament and it counted so to speak.

    It can be done. Reduce the number of friendlies and increase the number of games played in international tournaments and create a few new tourneys besides. Make them count for something and not just spit.

  32. “Speaking of women’s achievements, just yesterday (literally in this case, September 13) during an exhibition game, Women’s National Team Goalie Hope Solo broke the record for career shutouts with 72, breaking the record held by Brianna Scurry of the 1999 Women’s World Cup victory fame. That game of course has a UCLA connection since the final was played at the Rose Bowl in front of about 80,000 spectators.”

    Most USA women’s national team soccer games have been international friendlies (more so than the men’s national team). The creation of the Women’s World Cup was historically very recent, likewise Olympic women’s football is recent. Before these, all the women’s national team had were international friendlies, and since until very recently there were no professional women’s soccer leagues for the national team members to play in, the only way they had to get top level experience and stay in form was to play a lot of international friendlies.

    Women’s professional soccer is not taken very seriously though (like the WNBA), so playing for the women’s national team is a female player’s #1 priority in a way that it isn’t for a male player. Hence more importance placed on women’s international friendlies.

    “Another observation for those who like soccer: Why is it that soccer keeps track of all stats set during exhibition games? In other words whatever a player does during an exhibition game, its actually counted among their career stats? This is nonsensical. Exhibition by its very definition means “it doesn’t count or mean anything”. This is ridiculous. Stop counting things done in exhibition games. They don’t count so obviously nothing else should during those games. No other sport tacks on a players exhibition stats for his total career numbers, not MLB, NFL, NBA, etc.”

    “If we counted every HR that Babe Ruth hit during spring training games and barnstorming games, he’d have well over 1,300 HRS for his career.”

    These are not “exhibition games” as you define it, because they are not meaningless. They do count; they just don’t count in a particular competition. You are stuck in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL mindset where you have only one top league for each sport, with only one competition ending in one champion every year in said sport, where the only stats that count are stats in the league competition. That’s not how soccer works.

    Soccer has always had multiple competitions; see for instance the history of the Football Association and the Football League in England. So for instance in the 2014-15 season a top level Premier League team can be involved in up to four simultaneous competitions: The Premier League, The FA Cup, The Football League Cup (currently called the Capital One Cup), and The European Champions League or The Europa League.

    So it simply makes sense to combine stats from these different competitions when looking at a player’s career; and since friendlies are often used to determine players positions for future competitive lineups, they are not “meaningless” and players will play quite fiercely in “friendlies” to ensure that they don’t lose their place to someone else. These aren’t exhibitions; they are quite competitive to someone trying to make their way into the starting lineup.

    In addition to club teams, there are national teams, so a player who earns “caps” – appearances for his national team – will have his international career stats included with his club stats when considering total career stats.

    Something to keep in mind is the Test Match concept, which soccer has pretty much lost, because international competition came in very early in soccer – the Olympic games very early, the World Cup in 1930, etc., so in effect these international competitions have served the function of Test Matches, but in rugby and cricket where international competitions (World Cups for instance) came relatively recently, the Test Match concept still lives.

    A Test Match is like an international friendly, and is used to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of national sides, much like college football tries to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of various college teams by how they matched up against each other, even in games which are not part of a conference or other “competitive” group.

    In other words, when two college teams meet up in non-conference play, the game is technically “meaningless” because the winner won’t advance in his own conference, and yet the game is still meaningful for determining how well the team is considered to have done that season, based on national rankings.

    In soccer, international friendlies are like college football non-conference match ups, and they are like Test Matches in rugby and cricket. They are not exhibitions; they are not meaningless. They are used to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of a national side; even though everyone says that FIFA rankings are a joke (like college football rankings), people still like to see their team rise in the rankings.

    And the players don’t think it is meaningless, either, because playing well in an international friendly ensures their staying in the starting lineup, or breaking into the starting lineup, so they will take a “friendly” very seriously. Earning “caps” by playing for the national team is important too; and players want to earn as many caps as they can. So players will take international friendlies seriously, even when their fans don’t take them that seriously.

    FIFA has a hand in saying what is, and is not, an international friendly. There are games which can be considered exhibitions, which FIFA does not recognize as an international friendly. These are games that no one takes seriously, and they are either held behind closed doors – scrimmages as you might call them – or they are sell tickets for charitable purposes and no one cares about the final score.

    But if someone is making money on the “friendly”, usually some of the money goes to the players so they do have a financial incentive to take the game seriously.

    This goes back to the old “sports tour” tradition in British sports which Americans don’t seem to get (though baseball did do a few world tours in the late 19th century). British cricket, rugby, soccer and other teams would do a world tour – usually the British Empire with trips to the USA, Latin America, Europe etc thrown in – and sell tickets, the profits going to the players and the tour organizer. No official “competition” was involved but the players took it seriously, because money.

    When the locals took it seriously too, like when the Aussies started beating the English at cricket, then things got more serious and competitions like the Ashes were invented. But most of this history is completely lost on modern American sports fans, alas. They simply can’t grok it.

    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
    And 1800 words later, I said "Meh!"

    Maybe get a blog of your own for posting novellas off topic?
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Stop stop stop, time out from your lengthy dissertation. The point is, the friendlies do NOT count.

    Nix them for the most part and instead play international games that DO count as in….create more tournaments. The WNT simply doesnt have enough of them period. Yes yes yes, the other sports leagues have exhibitions or friendlies and charge admission and they count in the sense of allowing various players to remain on the team. From the coaches perspective they are important in determining how individual players are doing (worth keeping on the team or releasing).

    No matter how you slice it, they still do NOT count for spit. They do not count. Are they actually playing for a championship?

    NO!

    Are they playing for anything of relevance for standings AS IN….do they count toward WC or Olympics or the Algarve Cup (the only womens soccer's annual tournament which is in the spring)?

    NO!

    Nix that. Instead, create some new tournaments, say, one in the fall and one in the spring in the in yrs (WC/Olympics) and more in the out yrs (yrs without WC/Olympics)

    Time for Soccer's semi-bogus antiquated ticky tack rulings to join the 21st century.
  33. @Steve:

    I presume your comment:

    I don’t see much change in the numbers for young people in the three decades since then. If there had been much change since then, there wouldn’t be the 2012-2014 hysteria about male privilege, would there?

    Overall, I’m constantly struck by how elastic the past is to the Dominant Narrative. We’re out a couple of generations or so from the pre-feminist era, and yet the standard assumption behind most journalism on gender gaps is that it was only yesterday that young women were told they shouldn’t be trying for careers.

    is meant to be rhetorical, yes?

    Surely you know that the problems of women/black people/choose your group are fractal in nature, right? In laymen’s terms of the maths, take an item, chop a small piece off, examine closely the tiny piece, and the properties of the larger are exactly duplicated in the smaller.

    It’s in a way why calculus was created to begin with. Tossing Leibnitz and Newton out the window allows the grievance industry to go on in perpetuity. The problem can never be solved.

    50 years ago, women could not get a “real” job. Then, they could not get a “real” career. Then they earned less in the “real” careers than men. Then they were less likely to be the manager of the department. Then they were less likely to be an executive. Then they were less likely to be CEO. Then, CEO of a Fortune 500 company…

    Thus, over time, the discussion is transmogrified from one of whether women ought to get more than a finishing school education into one of why women have a hard time dating at Harvard Business School.

    It’s almost like “Sunset Boulevard” for complaining. Feminists are still big stars, only the problems got smaller.

    http://sjrefugee.blogspot.fr/2014/01/fractals-one-per-cent-and-le-loup-de.html

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Thus, over time, the discussion is transmogrified from one of whether women ought to get more than a finishing school education into one of why women have a hard time dating at Harvard Business School."

    Or as in that long NYT article last year I wrote about in Taki's, why women at Harvard Business School were going on so many hot dates with classmates who were future captains of industry that they weren't making the honor roll as much as the men at HBS. The oppression of women takes many forms!

  34. Yes, yes. But she was still playing against girls, yes? (Let me disclaim that I am a big admirer of women’s soccer and golf, etc)

    But what is the point of repeating that women are awesome against other women in this context?

  35. Some dominant themes of the Narrative:

    The wrong kind of white people cause all of the problems of inequality. (In this case, the problem is that women do not win an equal number of chess championships.) The wrong kind of white people have held women and minorities back and continue to hold them back in numerous ways, some of which are indefinable and unobservable.

    The right kind of white people and their minority and female allies have won the political struggle and we are now in a new era of increasing equality. Progress is continuing and inevitable as long as the wrong kind of white people do not exert their malign influence. People are becoming more equal in every area of human life.

    Human life is better in every way in the new era of equality.

    The only threat to progress comes from the wrong kind of white people. For progress to continue, they must be monitored closely and suppressed ruthlessly if a lack of progress toward equality is detected.

    This is basically a tribal wafare narrative, with the right kind of white people and their allies the heroes and the wrong kind of white people the constant villains, threats, and malefactors.

  36. “The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.”

    ― Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo

    I always thought this quote was pithy, but missed the point almost entirely. Dates matter, sometimes a lot.

  37. If she continues her current arc of improvement, Carissa Yip will eclipse Judith Polgar. A 10-year old with a 2131 rating, she recently beat one Polgar benchmark by becoming the youngest girl to beat a grandmaster.

    It’s the Massachusetts schools, right?

  38. My city’s reliably-left newspaper ran an Op-Ed yesterday to remind its remaining readers to ignore their lyin’ eyes when it comes to gender differences in sports performance: Throwing like a girl:An equality-stressing mom of three boys is surprised when one son reveals he believes boys are better at sports

    “Isn’t it great that Mo’ne Davis is kicking butt at the Little League World Series?” I said… “Not really” said my 9-year-old [baseball-loving son]… Puzzled by his lack of enthusiasm, I pushed once more for a response. He finally said, “What’s the big deal? You just think it’s great because boys are usually better at sports.”

    …My child, who has been raised in a home with an equal division of labor in and outside of the house, where liberal and feminist views abound, believes that boys are better? …it appeared that this opinion of male superiority was circumscribed to sports. I would be lying if said I wasn’t a little surprised and disappointed by his reaction. I guess I had assumed all along that our family values would automatically translate into the kids adopting similar values. I thought they were raised to believe that boys and girls were equal, in all areas.

    My view is that this showcases the urgent need for a constitutional amendment. Blank-slate deniers like this 9-year-old should be entitled to the benefits of self-criticism sessions and re-education camps. We can no longer risk delaying the triumph of the New Soviet Man Person — trans, cis, or other.

  39. @AnotherDad
    When one steps back for a moment, the absolute insanity of modern (leftist) thought truly does amaze.

    Leftism as politics--basically "the will to power"--is ancient and pretty understandable. Within about 45 seconds of the neolithic revolution there was some guy thinking, "Hey, i don't have to be a peasant and scratch the dirt all day ... i can just make all the peasants growing food, feed me!" Lords, nobles, kings, "court", bureaucrats, armies, the police--and the ubiquitous taxman and the rent-seeker--quickly followed. Modern leftist states are just even more elaborately parasitic, with millions more court retainers on welfare. (A takes from B, gives to C, who is then grateful to ... A! for taking care of him. And votes him more power to loot B.)

    However, leftism as ideology--to try and put lipstick on this pig--holy cow, what a pile of crap.

    Even the dumbest religious precepts can't hold a candle to this insanity. Religious ideology was generally about supernatural stuff that is simply unknowable--or explaining "origins" that seemed unknowable at the time. What they generally didn't do was stand fore square in the face of ordinary human experience and say "that's crap!" (In fact, the successful religions basically reinforced some practical knowledge about how to organize folks lives to maintain civilization--not stealing, not murdering, sexual-restraint, monogamy, etc. If they didn't ride along with a civilization they weren't "successful".)

    Ideologically modern leftism is knowledge destruction--encouraging people to *not* believe what simple observation (and now massive data) and common sense tells them. Take the entire humanities and social science faculties of modern universities, and combined, these folks know less about human nature than William Shakespeare. Given their incredible resources and the data they have to draw on--that's quite a feat!

    When one steps back for a moment, the absolute insanity of modern (leftist) thought truly does amaze.

    Leftism as politics–basically “the will to power”–is ancient and pretty understandable. Within about 45 seconds of the neolithic revolution there was some guy thinking, “Hey, i don’t have to be a peasant and scratch the dirt all day … i can just make all the peasants growing food, feed me!” Lords, nobles, kings, “court”, bureaucrats, armies, the police–and the ubiquitous taxman and the rent-seeker–quickly followed. Modern leftist states are just even more elaborately parasitic, with millions more court retainers on welfare. (A takes from B, gives to C, who is then grateful to … A! for taking care of him. And votes him more power to loot B.)

    However, leftism as ideology–to try and put lipstick on this pig–holy cow, what a pile of crap.

    Even the dumbest religious precepts can’t hold a candle to this insanity. Religious ideology was generally about supernatural stuff that is simply unknowable–or explaining “origins” that seemed unknowable at the time. What they generally didn’t do was stand fore square in the face of ordinary human experience and say “that’s crap!” (In fact, the successful religions basically reinforced some practical knowledge about how to organize folks lives to maintain civilization–not stealing, not murdering, sexual-restraint, monogamy, etc. If they didn’t ride along with a civilization they weren’t “successful”.)

    Ideologically modern leftism is knowledge destruction–encouraging people to *not* believe what simple observation (and now massive data) and common sense tells them. Take the entire humanities and social science faculties of modern universities, and combined, these folks know less about human nature than William Shakespeare. Given their incredible resources and the data they have to draw on–that’s quite a feat!

    Amen brother!

  40. @Anonymous
    but the assumption then was that professional women were celibates.

    What do you mean by this? And how do you define professional women?

    Women in well compensated bourgeois occupations (not subaltern and often certified or licensed) which do not incorporate line administration. By way of example was a crew of women with whom my mother was acquainted ca. 1952 in Boston, all then working at unremarkable jobs and sharing a house. Two got married and had children. Another worked her way into a job as a stockbroker and married late in life (and had children in her middle 30s), and the last was a life long spinster and ended her working days as a university law librarian (I do not believe she ever practiced law). These were all women born ca. 1929.

  41. These days, many more women play very well, and the gap between the top men and women in the game is narrowing.

    What nonsense. As someone posted above, there is one woman in the top 250, Yifan Hou. Women are only more competitive with men in chess than they are in tennis, I suppose, but that’s about as much as you can say.

    But it doesn’t matter. Cowen says women are catching up in chess, and provides a link to a long, long article that provides next to no support for his argument, and no one except a few internet commentators will call him on it. Dylan McLoeb, the Times chess columnist, called Hou one of the greatest prodigies of all time, even though dozens of men have been stronger than she is at her age. If you control the discourse you don’t have to be right. You just have to be Correct.

  42. @meh
    "Speaking of women’s achievements, just yesterday (literally in this case, September 13) during an exhibition game, Women’s National Team Goalie Hope Solo broke the record for career shutouts with 72, breaking the record held by Brianna Scurry of the 1999 Women’s World Cup victory fame. That game of course has a UCLA connection since the final was played at the Rose Bowl in front of about 80,000 spectators."

    Most USA women's national team soccer games have been international friendlies (more so than the men's national team). The creation of the Women's World Cup was historically very recent, likewise Olympic women's football is recent. Before these, all the women's national team had were international friendlies, and since until very recently there were no professional women's soccer leagues for the national team members to play in, the only way they had to get top level experience and stay in form was to play a lot of international friendlies.

    Women's professional soccer is not taken very seriously though (like the WNBA), so playing for the women's national team is a female player's #1 priority in a way that it isn't for a male player. Hence more importance placed on women's international friendlies.

    "Another observation for those who like soccer: Why is it that soccer keeps track of all stats set during exhibition games? In other words whatever a player does during an exhibition game, its actually counted among their career stats? This is nonsensical. Exhibition by its very definition means “it doesn’t count or mean anything”. This is ridiculous. Stop counting things done in exhibition games. They don’t count so obviously nothing else should during those games. No other sport tacks on a players exhibition stats for his total career numbers, not MLB, NFL, NBA, etc."

    "If we counted every HR that Babe Ruth hit during spring training games and barnstorming games, he’d have well over 1,300 HRS for his career."


    These are not "exhibition games" as you define it, because they are not meaningless. They do count; they just don't count in a particular competition. You are stuck in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL mindset where you have only one top league for each sport, with only one competition ending in one champion every year in said sport, where the only stats that count are stats in the league competition. That's not how soccer works.

    Soccer has always had multiple competitions; see for instance the history of the Football Association and the Football League in England. So for instance in the 2014-15 season a top level Premier League team can be involved in up to four simultaneous competitions: The Premier League, The FA Cup, The Football League Cup (currently called the Capital One Cup), and The European Champions League or The Europa League.

    So it simply makes sense to combine stats from these different competitions when looking at a player's career; and since friendlies are often used to determine players positions for future competitive lineups, they are not "meaningless" and players will play quite fiercely in "friendlies" to ensure that they don't lose their place to someone else. These aren't exhibitions; they are quite competitive to someone trying to make their way into the starting lineup.

    In addition to club teams, there are national teams, so a player who earns "caps" - appearances for his national team - will have his international career stats included with his club stats when considering total career stats.

    Something to keep in mind is the Test Match concept, which soccer has pretty much lost, because international competition came in very early in soccer - the Olympic games very early, the World Cup in 1930, etc., so in effect these international competitions have served the function of Test Matches, but in rugby and cricket where international competitions (World Cups for instance) came relatively recently, the Test Match concept still lives.

    A Test Match is like an international friendly, and is used to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of national sides, much like college football tries to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of various college teams by how they matched up against each other, even in games which are not part of a conference or other "competitive" group.

    In other words, when two college teams meet up in non-conference play, the game is technically "meaningless" because the winner won't advance in his own conference, and yet the game is still meaningful for determining how well the team is considered to have done that season, based on national rankings.

    In soccer, international friendlies are like college football non-conference match ups, and they are like Test Matches in rugby and cricket. They are not exhibitions; they are not meaningless. They are used to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of a national side; even though everyone says that FIFA rankings are a joke (like college football rankings), people still like to see their team rise in the rankings.

    And the players don't think it is meaningless, either, because playing well in an international friendly ensures their staying in the starting lineup, or breaking into the starting lineup, so they will take a "friendly" very seriously. Earning "caps" by playing for the national team is important too; and players want to earn as many caps as they can. So players will take international friendlies seriously, even when their fans don't take them that seriously.

    FIFA has a hand in saying what is, and is not, an international friendly. There are games which can be considered exhibitions, which FIFA does not recognize as an international friendly. These are games that no one takes seriously, and they are either held behind closed doors - scrimmages as you might call them - or they are sell tickets for charitable purposes and no one cares about the final score.

    But if someone is making money on the "friendly", usually some of the money goes to the players so they do have a financial incentive to take the game seriously.

    This goes back to the old "sports tour" tradition in British sports which Americans don't seem to get (though baseball did do a few world tours in the late 19th century). British cricket, rugby, soccer and other teams would do a world tour - usually the British Empire with trips to the USA, Latin America, Europe etc thrown in - and sell tickets, the profits going to the players and the tour organizer. No official "competition" was involved but the players took it seriously, because money.

    When the locals took it seriously too, like when the Aussies started beating the English at cricket, then things got more serious and competitions like the Ashes were invented. But most of this history is completely lost on modern American sports fans, alas. They simply can't grok it.

    And 1800 words later, I said “Meh!”

    Maybe get a blog of your own for posting novellas off topic?

  43. @casey
    It is sanctimonious and frankly immature crap like this comment and the insulting, insipid blog post it links to that really drags this website down, straight into the gutter.

    What we need is feminism + support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do.

    And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20's may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem? The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw.

    “What we need is feminism”

    No.

    ” support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do.”

    Women cannot possibly “have families and pursue their careers just as men do” because men can do it through the help of their wives taking care of the kids. The same sstem would not work vice versa because women HATE the thought of marrying a man who doesn’t make more money than them.

    “And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20′s may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem?”

    No, not really. Men not wanting to get married at that age is irrelevant because neither do women. Furthermore, men in their 30s can marry a younger woman just fine.

    Considering the hilarious divorce and family law, it’s a suprise that there are men getting married in the first place. You want more men wanting marriage, maybe you should outlaw paternity fraud or introduce mandatory paternity testing. You know, the bare minimum to ensure that no men get screwed over.

    ” The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw.”

    Not wanting to get sucked dry (and not in a good way, IYKWIM) = Peter Pan. Got it. /sarcasm

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    because women HATE the thought of marrying a man who doesn’t make more money than them.

    No, roughly a third of married women, by some accounts, out earn their husbands. But it is true that role reversal is simply unworkable.
  44. Cowwn’s article is more interesting than Steve gives it credit for. As usual with Cowen, I get the sense that, if he wasn’t paid so much to lie, he’d really like to tell the truth and that he probably tells himself that he is telling as much of the truth as he can get away with. To wit:

    But the authors show that once women achieve a critical mass in a particular area, their participation grows rapidly, at least after basic norms of inclusion have been established . . . For instance, Mr. Karpowitz and Ms. Mendelberg show that, over time, men behave in a less stereotypically male way when more women are participating in an organization or an activity.

    In English, men flee occupations once the occupations reach a % female tipping point because being in a female-dominated environment sucks. But look (he may tell himself), I said it in the NYT!

    Also, it seems possible that Cowen is unduly influenced by his experience in the economics profession. As the reports you can read here document, women have made rapid inroads in economics in the last twenty or so years, going from 6% to 12% of full professors. This has happened less by affirmative action than by re-engineering the whole profession to be more women-friendly. Bruce Charlton (talking about medicine rather than economics) has very good (if somewhat long and dry) posts on what this dynamic is like here and here. Basically, over the last four decades or so, the profession has increasingly emphasized a variety of mindless box-ticking and getting-along-well-with-others activities over having good ideas or being right about stuff. Also, scholarship-as-combat is decidedly out and scholarship-as-collaboration-and-consensus is decidedly in. Women are better that that stuff.

  45. I’m your age Steve, and I find it a lot more fun to shop on Ebay than I ever did at Robinson’s or the May Company.

  46. As usual with Cowen, I get the sense that, if he wasn’t paid so much to lie,

    What? Who pays him to lie, and about what?

  47. @gu
    "What we need is feminism"

    No.

    " support for women so they can have families and pursue their careers just as men do."

    Women cannot possibly "have families and pursue their careers just as men do" because men can do it through the help of their wives taking care of the kids. The same sstem would not work vice versa because women HATE the thought of marrying a man who doesn't make more money than them.

    "And can we just admit that part of the problem may be that men in their 20′s may not be dying to settle down and have children, and that may be part of the problem?"

    No, not really. Men not wanting to get married at that age is irrelevant because neither do women. Furthermore, men in their 30s can marry a younger woman just fine.

    Considering the hilarious divorce and family law, it's a suprise that there are men getting married in the first place. You want more men wanting marriage, maybe you should outlaw paternity fraud or introduce mandatory paternity testing. You know, the bare minimum to ensure that no men get screwed over.

    " The Peter Pan fascination with the Playboy lifestyle goes back to before 2nd wave feminism btw."

    Not wanting to get sucked dry (and not in a good way, IYKWIM) = Peter Pan. Got it. /sarcasm

    because women HATE the thought of marrying a man who doesn’t make more money than them.

    No, roughly a third of married women, by some accounts, out earn their husbands. But it is true that role reversal is simply unworkable.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That stat appears quite high and very questionable. Ten percent, not one third.
  48. The lengths to which the media will go to push its moral lesson that every group and both genders are equal likely brings about one unintended consequence: readers will interpret the articles they read accordingly.

    When I read an article in virtually any area, I look at the principals figuring into the story. If a good proportion of them are women, or are from some underrepresented group, then I simply dismiss the article as providing me with no useful information (or worse) about the purported subject matter of the article.

    If I read an article supposedly about brilliant innovations in technology, and the principals are women or underrepresented minorities, I assume that the innovation is a triviality, and move on. Likewise if it’s about some scientific matter; likewise if it’s about a supposedly exciting business idea; likewise if it’s about a movie or television show; likewise if it’s about chess. Etc.

    I may have come into the article expecting to find something interesting on these matters. But I know that it will contain nothing more than distortions to make a mediocre idea seem earth-shaking. In that sense, it actually subtracts from my knowledge, because I’ll have a mistaken idea as to what’s genuinely important and new in the area in question.

    It’s bad enough not to get useful information; worse yet is to get a distorted idea of a domain.

  49. @DWB
    @Steve:

    I presume your comment:

    I don’t see much change in the numbers for young people in the three decades since then. If there had been much change since then, there wouldn’t be the 2012-2014 hysteria about male privilege, would there?

    Overall, I’m constantly struck by how elastic the past is to the Dominant Narrative. We’re out a couple of generations or so from the pre-feminist era, and yet the standard assumption behind most journalism on gender gaps is that it was only yesterday that young women were told they shouldn’t be trying for careers.
     
    is meant to be rhetorical, yes?

    Surely you know that the problems of women/black people/choose your group are fractal in nature, right? In laymen's terms of the maths, take an item, chop a small piece off, examine closely the tiny piece, and the properties of the larger are exactly duplicated in the smaller.

    It's in a way why calculus was created to begin with. Tossing Leibnitz and Newton out the window allows the grievance industry to go on in perpetuity. The problem can never be solved.

    50 years ago, women could not get a "real" job. Then, they could not get a "real" career. Then they earned less in the "real" careers than men. Then they were less likely to be the manager of the department. Then they were less likely to be an executive. Then they were less likely to be CEO. Then, CEO of a Fortune 500 company...

    Thus, over time, the discussion is transmogrified from one of whether women ought to get more than a finishing school education into one of why women have a hard time dating at Harvard Business School.

    It's almost like "Sunset Boulevard" for complaining. Feminists are still big stars, only the problems got smaller.

    http://sjrefugee.blogspot.fr/2014/01/fractals-one-per-cent-and-le-loup-de.html

    “Thus, over time, the discussion is transmogrified from one of whether women ought to get more than a finishing school education into one of why women have a hard time dating at Harvard Business School.”

    Or as in that long NYT article last year I wrote about in Taki’s, why women at Harvard Business School were going on so many hot dates with classmates who were future captains of industry that they weren’t making the honor roll as much as the men at HBS. The oppression of women takes many forms!

  50. @meh
    "Speaking of women’s achievements, just yesterday (literally in this case, September 13) during an exhibition game, Women’s National Team Goalie Hope Solo broke the record for career shutouts with 72, breaking the record held by Brianna Scurry of the 1999 Women’s World Cup victory fame. That game of course has a UCLA connection since the final was played at the Rose Bowl in front of about 80,000 spectators."

    Most USA women's national team soccer games have been international friendlies (more so than the men's national team). The creation of the Women's World Cup was historically very recent, likewise Olympic women's football is recent. Before these, all the women's national team had were international friendlies, and since until very recently there were no professional women's soccer leagues for the national team members to play in, the only way they had to get top level experience and stay in form was to play a lot of international friendlies.

    Women's professional soccer is not taken very seriously though (like the WNBA), so playing for the women's national team is a female player's #1 priority in a way that it isn't for a male player. Hence more importance placed on women's international friendlies.

    "Another observation for those who like soccer: Why is it that soccer keeps track of all stats set during exhibition games? In other words whatever a player does during an exhibition game, its actually counted among their career stats? This is nonsensical. Exhibition by its very definition means “it doesn’t count or mean anything”. This is ridiculous. Stop counting things done in exhibition games. They don’t count so obviously nothing else should during those games. No other sport tacks on a players exhibition stats for his total career numbers, not MLB, NFL, NBA, etc."

    "If we counted every HR that Babe Ruth hit during spring training games and barnstorming games, he’d have well over 1,300 HRS for his career."


    These are not "exhibition games" as you define it, because they are not meaningless. They do count; they just don't count in a particular competition. You are stuck in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL mindset where you have only one top league for each sport, with only one competition ending in one champion every year in said sport, where the only stats that count are stats in the league competition. That's not how soccer works.

    Soccer has always had multiple competitions; see for instance the history of the Football Association and the Football League in England. So for instance in the 2014-15 season a top level Premier League team can be involved in up to four simultaneous competitions: The Premier League, The FA Cup, The Football League Cup (currently called the Capital One Cup), and The European Champions League or The Europa League.

    So it simply makes sense to combine stats from these different competitions when looking at a player's career; and since friendlies are often used to determine players positions for future competitive lineups, they are not "meaningless" and players will play quite fiercely in "friendlies" to ensure that they don't lose their place to someone else. These aren't exhibitions; they are quite competitive to someone trying to make their way into the starting lineup.

    In addition to club teams, there are national teams, so a player who earns "caps" - appearances for his national team - will have his international career stats included with his club stats when considering total career stats.

    Something to keep in mind is the Test Match concept, which soccer has pretty much lost, because international competition came in very early in soccer - the Olympic games very early, the World Cup in 1930, etc., so in effect these international competitions have served the function of Test Matches, but in rugby and cricket where international competitions (World Cups for instance) came relatively recently, the Test Match concept still lives.

    A Test Match is like an international friendly, and is used to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of national sides, much like college football tries to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of various college teams by how they matched up against each other, even in games which are not part of a conference or other "competitive" group.

    In other words, when two college teams meet up in non-conference play, the game is technically "meaningless" because the winner won't advance in his own conference, and yet the game is still meaningful for determining how well the team is considered to have done that season, based on national rankings.

    In soccer, international friendlies are like college football non-conference match ups, and they are like Test Matches in rugby and cricket. They are not exhibitions; they are not meaningless. They are used to gauge the relative strengths and weaknesses of a national side; even though everyone says that FIFA rankings are a joke (like college football rankings), people still like to see their team rise in the rankings.

    And the players don't think it is meaningless, either, because playing well in an international friendly ensures their staying in the starting lineup, or breaking into the starting lineup, so they will take a "friendly" very seriously. Earning "caps" by playing for the national team is important too; and players want to earn as many caps as they can. So players will take international friendlies seriously, even when their fans don't take them that seriously.

    FIFA has a hand in saying what is, and is not, an international friendly. There are games which can be considered exhibitions, which FIFA does not recognize as an international friendly. These are games that no one takes seriously, and they are either held behind closed doors - scrimmages as you might call them - or they are sell tickets for charitable purposes and no one cares about the final score.

    But if someone is making money on the "friendly", usually some of the money goes to the players so they do have a financial incentive to take the game seriously.

    This goes back to the old "sports tour" tradition in British sports which Americans don't seem to get (though baseball did do a few world tours in the late 19th century). British cricket, rugby, soccer and other teams would do a world tour - usually the British Empire with trips to the USA, Latin America, Europe etc thrown in - and sell tickets, the profits going to the players and the tour organizer. No official "competition" was involved but the players took it seriously, because money.

    When the locals took it seriously too, like when the Aussies started beating the English at cricket, then things got more serious and competitions like the Ashes were invented. But most of this history is completely lost on modern American sports fans, alas. They simply can't grok it.

    Stop stop stop, time out from your lengthy dissertation. The point is, the friendlies do NOT count.

    Nix them for the most part and instead play international games that DO count as in….create more tournaments. The WNT simply doesnt have enough of them period. Yes yes yes, the other sports leagues have exhibitions or friendlies and charge admission and they count in the sense of allowing various players to remain on the team. From the coaches perspective they are important in determining how individual players are doing (worth keeping on the team or releasing).

    No matter how you slice it, they still do NOT count for spit. They do not count. Are they actually playing for a championship?

    NO!

    Are they playing for anything of relevance for standings AS IN….do they count toward WC or Olympics or the Algarve Cup (the only womens soccer’s annual tournament which is in the spring)?

    NO!

    Nix that. Instead, create some new tournaments, say, one in the fall and one in the spring in the in yrs (WC/Olympics) and more in the out yrs (yrs without WC/Olympics)

    Time for Soccer’s semi-bogus antiquated ticky tack rulings to join the 21st century.

  51. @Art Deco
    because women HATE the thought of marrying a man who doesn’t make more money than them.

    No, roughly a third of married women, by some accounts, out earn their husbands. But it is true that role reversal is simply unworkable.

    That stat appears quite high and very questionable. Ten percent, not one third.

  52. No woman has received a Best Cine Oscar but how important was Leni Riefenstahl in the development of it?

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Actually, probably very little at all. She started out as an actress then moved into directing. She didn't really become an amazing photographer until around or post-WW2.

    And anyway, she never worked in Hollywood.
  53. @Former Darfur
    No woman has received a Best Cine Oscar but how important was Leni Riefenstahl in the development of it?

    Actually, probably very little at all. She started out as an actress then moved into directing. She didn’t really become an amazing photographer until around or post-WW2.

    And anyway, she never worked in Hollywood.

    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    Riefenstahl's visual style was extremely influential - including in Hollywood.
  54. @meh
    "For someone who grew up in the heartland of the movie industry, Sailer, you sure are deluded if you think that it’s meritocratic and that the best rise to the top. There isn’t an industry or human endeavour in America that’s less meritocratic and purely based on Who You Know than the film industry."

    This thread is about chess, and the gender gap; why are you bringing up the movie industry?

    And where has Steve said that the movie industry was meritocratic? Steve spends quite a bit of his time pointing out things that aren't what they appear to be, including things which are allegedly meritocratic which are in fact not, and how people game the system to get ahead, and so on. I mean really, is this the first time you've read iSteve?

    In general, smart people do better at jobs requiring smarts than dumb people do, and yes some groups are better at certain things than other groups are. The gender gap is real; the black/white IQ gap is real, and so on. But Steve hasn't said that just because these gaps are real, that ergo we live in a meritocratic society. He's pointed out that we don't live in a pure meritocracy for good HBD reasons; groups compete, evolutionary psychology shows that we aren't atomized individuals living in a meritocratic system; we're members of sometimes hostile, usually competitive groups who don't always play nice with each other, and who seldom play according to the alleged "rules".

    You've obviously confused Steve with your stereotypical IQ-fetishist, libertarian types who actually believe in meritocracy because they're socially autistic. That ain't Steve.

    Among many other passages in which Sailer wrote that the film industry is meritocratic, he wrote in this post: “the static or widening gender gaps in the really good jobs, like in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. For example, no woman has ever been nominated for an Oscar for Best Cinematography.”

    As if the most talented people actually get the best jobs and are rewarded in such jobs, when in reality connections rule the roost.

    This is a common error Sailer makes, and he really should know better considering where he grew up and where he lives now.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Why would "really good jobs" = "meritocratic"?

    It's kind of like business strategy. You don't want to be in a situation of perfect competition. The really good companies to own are like Google and Coke that don't have to compete that hard?

  55. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Actually, probably very little at all. She started out as an actress then moved into directing. She didn't really become an amazing photographer until around or post-WW2.

    And anyway, she never worked in Hollywood.

    Riefenstahl’s visual style was extremely influential – including in Hollywood.

  56. @Hare Krishna
    Among many other passages in which Sailer wrote that the film industry is meritocratic, he wrote in this post: "the static or widening gender gaps in the really good jobs, like in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. For example, no woman has ever been nominated for an Oscar for Best Cinematography."

    As if the most talented people actually get the best jobs and are rewarded in such jobs, when in reality connections rule the roost.

    This is a common error Sailer makes, and he really should know better considering where he grew up and where he lives now.

    Why would “really good jobs” = “meritocratic”?

    It’s kind of like business strategy. You don’t want to be in a situation of perfect competition. The really good companies to own are like Google and Coke that don’t have to compete that hard?

    • Replies: @Hare Krishna
    You often think that Hollywood draws the best and the brightest, not the most well connected, as demonstrated by your posts about the lack of Latinos in Hollywood. If the entertainment industry is dominated by Group A, and Group B is underrepresented, that does not mean that Group B is inferior.
  57. @Steve Sailer
    Why would "really good jobs" = "meritocratic"?

    It's kind of like business strategy. You don't want to be in a situation of perfect competition. The really good companies to own are like Google and Coke that don't have to compete that hard?

    You often think that Hollywood draws the best and the brightest, not the most well connected, as demonstrated by your posts about the lack of Latinos in Hollywood. If the entertainment industry is dominated by Group A, and Group B is underrepresented, that does not mean that Group B is inferior.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS