Source: Wikimedia Commons

If you’re a woman whose entire identity is predicated upon feeling sorry for yourself, I have some good news—a recent UN report concludes that, despite all the “advances” of the past century, the world has grown slightly more “sexist” over the past few years.

That’s right—as topsy-turvy as it sounds, for women who simply can’t take a breath without needing to feel oppressed, good news always comes in the form of bad news.

According to the UN:

Report reveals nearly 90 per cent [sic] of all people have ‘a deeply ingrained bias’ against women

Despite decades of progress in closing the gender equality gap, close to nine out of 10 men and women around the world, [sic] hold some sort of bias against women, according to new findings published on Thursday from the UN Development Programmme (UNDP).

The first UNDP Gender Social Norms Index analyzed data from 75 countries, which are collectively home to more than 80 per cent of the global population, and found new clues to the invisible barriers women face in achieving equality – potentially forging a path forward to breaking through the so-called “glass ceiling”.

According to the data, almost half of those polled feel that men are superior political leaders, while more than 40 per cent [sic] believe they make better business executives and are more entitled to jobs when the economy is lagging. Moreover, 28 per cent think it is justified for a man to beat his wife.  

HOLD THE FORT! How the hell did they arrive at that “justified for a man to beat his wife” statistic?

That’s one of the massive problems with this study—and I’m being kind by calling it a study, because it’s nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias with a few numbers and charts plopped atop it all to give it the air of legitimacy—you can read every last word of the study 100 times and still have no idea how they arrived at that stat. They don’t even reveal how the question was posed to interview subjects. Neither do they reveal if subjects were also asked whether it’s ever justified for a woman to beat her husband.

All I can discern is that subjects were asked seven questions. They were asked to agree or disagree with the following four statements:

• Men make better political leaders than women do
• University is more important for a man than for a woman
• Men should have more right to a job than women
• Men make better business executives than women do

Then they were asked on a scale of 1 to 10 whether the following statement was “essential,” with 10 being extremely essential:

• Women have the same rights as men

But when you get to the final two questions, it’s almost as if they went out of their way to obscure what exactly was asked. Instead, respondents were asked to rate the following two inscrutable clauses from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning “never” and 10 meaning “always”:

• Proxy for intimate partner violence
• Proxy for reproductive rights

Come again? What? What exactly does that mean? Would they have us believe that respondents across the globe understood those phrases and what they were being asked? I spent about two hours searching those phrases online and still have no idea what they’re driving at or how they even constitute questions. How does one go from “Proxy to intimate partner violence” to “It’s OK for men to beat their wives”?

This tiny “explanation” was buried amid the report’s mounds of text:

For the physical integrity indicators, for which the answer also ranges from 1 to 10, the index defines individuals with a bias using a proxy variable for intimate partner violence and one for reproductive rights….

Sure, I realize that the overwhelming quotient of this social-justice gobbledygook is obfuscatory and overly intellectualized to hide its inherent inanity and meaninglessness, but this seems to set a new standard for “What the frick did you just say?”

Regardless, what the “study” concluded is that from 2010-2014, the quotient of women “with some bias” increased by 1.2%, while the quotient for men went up a half-point compared to 2004-2009. The percentage of people with “moderate to intense biases” went up 3.1% among women and eight-tenths of a percent with men.

To me, this is good news. A return to “sexism” is a return to realizing that men and women are different and therefore may have unique aptitudes that make each group better at some things and worse at others.

But when you state that “nearly 90 per cent [sic] of all people have ‘a deeply ingrained bias’ against women,” you’re essentially saying that nine out of ten people have a mental problem, or at least a noxious character flaw.

Somewhere deep in the UN’s labyrinthine corridors, someone is being grossly overpaid to conduct fraudulent studies which conclude that almost every normal person alive is aberrant.

Also, exactly how fanatical does your mindset have to be if you conclude that when someone thinks men make better political leaders than women, this is part of a “deeply ingrained bias” rather than an honest opinion?

Does it never strike these “researchers” as queer that “sexism” existed in every culture across the planet long before the word “sexism” did? Do they really believe that everyone on earth throughout history got it wrong in exactly the same way?

According to Wikipedia—yeah, I know—the word “sexism” was probably first coined during a 1965 speech and first appeared in print three years later. In both instances, the context is so dumb that it’s worth repeating.

In November, 1965, a woman named Pauline M. Leet uttered the following during a college symposium:

When you argue … that since fewer women write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion, you are taking a position analogous to that of the racist—I might call you in this case a ‘sexist’ … Both the racist and the sexist are acting as if all that has happened had never happened, and both of them are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant.

Huh? Who’s arguing that women shouldn’t write poetry? THAT’S something that actually “never happened.” Everything else you said makes me think you were premenstrual when you said it.

In November 1968, a book called Vital Speeches of the Day reprinted Caroline Bird’s “On Being Born Female,” which contained the following random agglomeration of words:

There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn’t matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism.

It’s “intended” to rhyme with racism? Interesting concept, because it doesn’t rhyme and never will. Then again, social justice is intended to make people equal, but they will never be equal. The equality industry is therefore a perpetual-motion racket because you’re never going to achieve it. There will always be “more work to do.”

Why? Because people are different.

As with “racism” being framed exclusively as something that only white people do and are never targeted by, “sexism” is something that only men do, and only women suffer as a result. It absolves women of the merest responsibility for anything bad that happens to them, because even the suggestion that women aren’t perfect is swiftly categorized as “sexist.”

Still, just as we can’t go a week without hearing about what happened to Emmett Till 65 years ago because it tends to obscure the reality of interracial rape statistics in 2020, the anti-“sexism” warriors never shut their flapping gums about witch burnings and foot bindings and denial of suffrage and gendered language and how, at least according to Hillary Clinton, “Women have always been the primary victims of war” because they lose their husbands and sons to combat.

According to one estimate, men account for 97% of war deaths. Think of how out-of-touch and truly privileged you have to be to think that the ones who don’t die are the real victims.

The study also tends to conflate chickens and eggs. Are the opinions the subjects expressed due to a complete lack of experience with women or the result of extensive experience with them? Is it possible that misogyny is a virus you contract after prolonged exposure to bad women? Don’t talk about “prejudice” when you’re really talking about postjudice.

Were respondents asked whether women are more empathetic than men? Were they asked if men were statistically more prone to violence than women? And if they answered “yes” to either question, would this be seen as “deeply ingrained bias” or as opinions that may actually be based in statistical facts?

Were they asked about the fact that across the globe, despite the fact that they are depicted as endlessly squirming under the thumb of sexist men, women live two years longer than men on average?

Not bloody likely!

Why do these types never push for “equality” when it comes to longevity? Or in custody disputes? Or in forcing women to work jobs that can kill you, since men currently account for 92% of workplace deaths?

These gender warriors sure seem to harbor a lot of negative biases about men. Isn’t the fact that they aren’t conducting similar surveys about negative attitudes toward men evidence of their own tremendous bias?

The presumption of innocence is the biggest social privilege imaginable. Women currently enjoy that privilege in spades, and the fact that this study presents “sexism” as a one-way street where women are the only possible victims of negative stereotypes forces me to conclude that this entire study is hopelessly biased against men.

Do women actually suffer more, or do they just cry louder? I think we all know the answer to that.

The world, both men and women, is coming to terms once again with the fact that women aren’t as great as they say they are. People, regardless of what’s between their legs, are getting tired of the constant scolding and lecturing and the doomed efforts to make us all the same. Even if it’s only a shift of one-half of a percentage point, it’s a move back toward normalcy. Vive la différence, you may now kiss the bride.