Search Box

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Women and ambition

The other day a college girl told me that most girls lose their ambition in college. She said that in high school, they all think they're going to conquer the world, but in college, most come to the realization that what they really want to do is just get married and have children. She said that very few girls will admit this, but it's true.

She added that a lot of women go on to get fancy graduate degrees, but that few of those actually have long-lasting careers; most end up married with children.

This raises an inescapable question: are positions in, say, med school wasted on those women who later decide that they want to be full-time mothers instead?

Any fair-minded person is going to agree that anyone who has done the work (i.e., taken the right courses, gotten the grades, and gotten good board scores) should be allowed into med school. But what about all those women who go through four years of med school and three years of residency, practice briefly as a physician until their first baby arrives, and then just retire? There's no question that these women have pretty much wasted their educations -- and taken up valuable medical school slots that could have been used by men who would have practiced medicine their entire lives.

What should be done about that?

Maybe nothing. There are certainly women who have long careers as doctors. But a significant fraction of women who go through med school don't. And even though this is a legitimate public policy concern, the question is never even raised publicly. (Which shows how crazy political correctness has become.)

There's certainly no easy answer. Fairness would dictate that med school acceptances be allotted by merit -- what the applicant has done in his or her life to that point. But given that a high percentage of women quit their jobs to raise babies, it's hard to view the roughly 50% female student bodies of most elite grad schools as a great victory for society.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the answer to your question is a little more complex, though I don't claim to have it. I graduated from medical school in the mid-1970s and have been in training or in practice for over 40 years. I don't think there are many female physicians who simply quit the practice of medicine after they get pregnant. However, some take a few years off when their children are young or work part time for a while for the same reason. I also believe that they tend to retire a few years younger than their male classmates, probably because they retire on the timetables of their husbands, who are typically a few years older. Of course, there are other female physicians who work continuously into their 70s. It would be interesting to work out how many FTE female physicians = 1 FTE male physician.

Mark Caplan said...

This article says in the UK female doctors work far fewer hours, retire early, and tend to avoid many important specialties, such as general surgery:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html

However, I didn't see in the article any actual data backing up those claims.

The UK's solution (and evidently ours too) is to import the additional needed doctors from sketchy countries with third-rate medical schools. A few months ago, 16 or so women patients in Charlotte, NC, accused a physician educated in Nigeria of sexual assault.

John Craig said...

Anonymous Doctor --
You're right, of course. The picture is far more complex than I painted it (this IS a blog, after all). I just wanted to raise the question and point out that even though it's an important question, the current environment precludes anyone raising it publicly.

I used doctors as my example because it seems more of a waste when a physician retires or goes part time than when a lawyer does so. (Doctors almost always do good, something you can't say about lawyers.) And while I have no statistics, I get the impression more women lawyers simply quite altogether when they have kids (I personally know several who have done so), in part because law is by its nature a less fulfilling profession.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Just read the article, thank you. Yes, importing doctors from other countries seems a poor substitute for having American-bred doctors who will work as doctors until they're 65 or so. Now that you've mentioned that, that's actually a pretty good metaphor for what's happening in this country on a number of different levels.

mark said...

Do people really lose their ambition in college? I would think the first 6 months on the job would be when ambition really fades for men and especially women. It is kind of, is that all there is, phenomenon. Haven't really thought about medicine but it might not be that bad a field for women. I mean it might be possible to control your hours and still make a middle class living. The professional women I work with are all in management and it is difficult to be part time in management. Thanks for your blog

Anonymous said...

We have the same problem in Germany and we also use the "immigration solution" to fix the problem. As Mark already mentioned women also tend to cluster around certain specialties.
I recently read about veterinary medicine where the student body became almost 100 % female in the last 10 years. It had two effects.

First of all women tend to work less hours and they also tend to quit completely when they start to have children. The second effect is almost all female veterinarians want to work with small animals like dogs and cats. That totally ruined the salaries in this area.
While it became very hard to find veterinarians that are willing to work in the farming industry. The veterinarians there earn considerably more and in a few years there won’t be any left.

Schopenhauer (here is his full essay: http://theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html) once said that all women have the same profession and it seem their taste is a lot less diverse than that of men.

-Sebastian

John Craig said...

Mark --
Good question. The young woman I spoke to was still in college so didn't address that. But I would think that whether or not ambition recedes when first on the job has a lot to do with what that job is and whether they see advancement, or at least significant monetary rewards, in their future.

Yes, I suppose working part time at a well paying job is good for the women w ho do it, but is giving a med school slot to someone who is only going to work part time good for society?

Thank YOU.

John Craig said...

Sebastian --
I'd gotten the vague impression that a lot of veterinarians were women, but hadn't realized the numbers were quite that skewed. I think that has something to do with the maternal instinct, and the fact that women will actually lavish some of their maternal instinct to their pet dogs and cats. I bet a lot of those vets grew up with animals. And that makes sense in the context of farm animals as well, since those large mammals don't quite evoke the maternal instinct the same way.

Interesting quote by Schopenhauer. I think he's right.

High Arka said...

Last time I was in a med. school, I overheard a professor telling her class, "Don't choose surgery if you want to have a family." Which means that almost all females will, by choice, not pursue surgery. Besides, surgery takes a lot more time and is a lot harder and more tense.

And people die when the right kind of surgeons or specialists aren't available...and yet, the AMA cartel keeps limiting admissions in order to keep pricing high, and to keep legislatures afraid of allowing malpractice lawsuits, because to permit people to sue incompetent doctors would risk de-licensing the already inadequate numbers of doctors being permitted to access formal education and licensing.

An interesting by-product of the AMA's cartel, and its exploitative and terrible residency system, is that a higher percentage of homosexual doctors are surgeons, as compared to the general population of doctors--gay men whose only "kids" are their dogs/cats are disproportionately represented among the people willing to go through the cartel's truly atrocious testing, education, and internship process, in order to finally be granted permission to rent out operating rooms and make $4K/hr adjusting heart valves.

Absent the AMA/insurance mafia that controls medical licensing and education, this country and all other countries would have nearly as many good, cheap doctors as there are good, cheap automobile mechanics and IT people.

Rona said...

It certainly seems there's no easy answer. On one hand, it seems politically impossible to set up quotas that make women, say, 1/3 max of med students. It also is unfair.

One possible solution to women quitting med profession might be to make it obligatory for all doctors to work certain number of years after graduating and be forced to pay for the option to quit. Money then could be used to train more doctors and people not absolutely sure that they want to practice med long term would be less likely to enroll.

This also might be pretty bad. Women would enter collage sure that they want to be doctors more than anything, in a few years find themselves wanting marriage and children, but be financially unable to quit and in the end stay doctors but also stay childless.

This solves problem of wasted med degrees but creates even worse one, as women with intelligence and conscientiousness to finish med school are the ones society most needs to reproduce and pass on their genes.

It would be useful, to use that annoying liberal phrase, to begin raising awareness. Young women must be made aware of huge number of professional women in their late 30s who are unable to get married and have children because they thought they could have it all. No sex and the city fairytale endings for them. On that note, present family life with a 3-4 kids as something to aspire to. Not every show needs to be about sterile female doctors and crime fighters. Grandmothers used to advise girls that they have a limited amount of time in which to secure their future. Stop wasting time on degrees you will have no use for in the long run.

-Rona

John Craig said...

High Arka --
Interesting, thank you; I didn't know any of that, though it all makes sense. I guess that's a large part of why getting operations is so much more expensive in this country than in Europe.

John Craig said...

Rona --
I like your solution. It's not "sexist," as it would apply to men as well as women. And I think the answer to the drawback you raise is that IF women do change their minds and decide that they want marriage and children more, then they can still have that, but will just have to accept that they won't be the primary caregivers for their children in a few years. It'd be sort of like West Point or Annapolis: accept our free education, but be aware that you're obligated to work for us for five years afterward. I've never heard of any objections to that policy.

I agree that something needs to be done to encourage smarter women to reproduce more. "Eugenics" is a dirty word these days, but in the meantime we seem to be on an incredibly dysgenic course. And yes, "awareness" needs to be raised. (But there's a reason there are more shows about female crime fighters than mothers: those shows contain more inherent drama, and are more exciting to watch.)

Anonymous said...

I have/had neighbors (one woman moved away) who are doctors, the female being a surgeon, the other doctor is an ER doctor. The woman always worked full-time, raising her family while having a career. She had nannies to help her with her children. This woman was married twice and she had three children, two with her first husband and one with her second husband. The second marriage was more stable than the first marriage - unfortunately, her husband became sick with cancer and died. When you have a career, it can be more stressful (for the family) than if you don't have a career because there is more juggling involved. However, if you're working at a career that you enjoy and love, that's a plus for the woman.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
True, financially it makes sense for a woman doctor to continue her career. I probably should have used women lawyers as an example in the post, I think more of them just quit altogether.

Anonymous said...

The ER doctor is a male, a very good, solid person.

-birdie

Steven said...

I think there is no question about it, they should be allowed into medical school if they've got the grades.

I wonder if there are stats out there about how many go through med school and then don't have careers as doctors. I imagine quite a significant percentage do have careers.

There should be equal opportunities but there should just be recognition that men and women are naturally different and women who wish to be homemakers should be respected as much as career women. Freedom and equality of opportunity, but also acceptance of reality and not to try to engineer equality of outcome.

Runner Katy said...

That sounds so funny to me to think that "most" women in college are already planning to just get married, have kids and stay home. I never dreamed such things. I always hoped to get married and have kids, but working has always been so rewarding to me, lifelong, that I never intended to just stay home. So I finished school (although not a doctor), have the career and even a side fun "job" and tried staying home all but part time, but it just wasn't for me. I'm a better wife and mother when I work hard, in a paying job. I think many stay at home moms secretly wish to be working, learning and growing with a company (or their own company) but won't admit it (if you ask me).

I also think that many women that end up leaving work to be home with children have intentions to return to work at some point in x amount of years. So that would mean that they would still need the solid education and training that they earned.

John Craig said...

Runner Katy --
I think you're right, a lot of stay-at-home moms are bored and wish to be working again. I've heard this from several. Also, I suspect that the college girl I was speaking to may have been projecting a bit when she said "most" come to that realization. She probably had a couple friends who admitted this to her, and she felt that way herself, so assumed her feelings were more widespread than it was.

Steven said...

"She probably had a couple friends who admitted this to her, and she felt that way herself, so assumed her feelings were more widespread than it was.!

Still I bet a lot more women than men come to that realisation. I bet its like almost zero men who have that feeling.

Anonymous said...

I heard of one woman (by way of a friend) who was a lawyer and while married, was a stay-at-home mother. After her marriage imploded, she eventually went back to work, again being employed as a lawyer. Fortunately, she had a career that she could return to.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Steven --
I'm sure that's true.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Yes, much better to have a career to fall back on.

Mark Caplan said...

Now I wonder whether the high attrition rate of teachers is partly because teachers are overwhelmingly female. They quit to start a family. Roughly half of teachers reportedly quit within the first five years on the job.

John Craig said...

Mark --
That makes sense. Teaching is a "nice girl" profession for young women with a lot of maternal instinct and a degree but not a burning desire to go out and conquer the world of business. So it attracts feminine women who are more likely to get married and want a family themselves.

Part of the reason so many teachers quit may also be because some of them end up in areas which have a lot of basically unteachable students, students over whom they can't exercise any control or discipline, and this is disheartening for them. But I think your theory accounts for most of it.

Anonymous said...

My first reaction was, what college did this girl attend? Not at the Ivy I went to. No loss of ambition there. I agree with the poster about anecdotes and the power of projection.

But that's really beside the point.

The real issue I have is with the notion that because a woman may dip in and out of her career, going part time or even stopping for several years, schooling was a waste.

I hate this capitalistic, worker-bee, over-professionalization of every job crap. There is such a thing as balance and quality of life. IMO, the above is the ideal scenario. Work a little after school, slow down or stop to raise your kids, and when they are grown resume work.

Also, not every doctor needs to be a brilliant surgeon. We need GPs, GYNs, small town MDs etc.

-Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
I can't argue with anything you just said. What you say is certainly true of the Ivies. And I have nothing against people who dip in and out of their careers. But there do seem to be a fair number of women who simply quit their jobs for good when they get married and have kids. I know a fair number of women in my Fairfield County hometown who fit that description. (Though most, in fairness, weren't doctors; a couple were lawyers, and most just worked at an array of corporate jobs.)

And on a personal level, I prefer people who don't take their jobs too seriously. I met plenty of people with more ambition than brains when I was on Wall Street, and I always found their company unpleasant. I vastly prefer to be around their opposite numbers.

I don't think I suggested that every doctor needs to be a surgeon; of course there is a need for the full array of actors.

But my original point still stands: if there is a shortage of, say, doctors in this country, and a certain percentage of women doctors are going to either retire early or work fewer hours than male doctors, should that somehow be taken into account?

I can't really answer all your questions in a semi-public forum like this, but if you send me your email address (which I promise not to post), I'll answer a couple of them.

Don Tomas said...

Very few doctors male or female quit medicine for good. Most lawyers do quit legal practice for good at some point: many people go to law school as an alternative to other master's or doctorate programs. Med schools actively weed out applicants with any other ambitions.

Also, in Europe, medicine always had a higher percentage of females than in the US, until recently.

The AMA does artificially keep the number of med schools and the number of students they can accept, so as to keep doctors' pay artificially high. The ABA does that too. Pharmacy used to pay less than being a sheetmetal worker at an aircraft plant until they made it a six year program: now pillcops pull six figure salaries for handing out pills at Walmart.

That's exactly what unions do. But the GOP which hates the Teamsters with a passion, loves the AMA, the ABA, all "professional" outfits. Go figure.

High Arka said...

You're absolutely correct, Gardner. The primary problem stems from the AMA cartel, which ensures that, for every woman doctor who leaves the profession, there exist another five intelligent, capable, committed male students who were barred from studying medicine by the cartel.

It's not fair, then, that society's anger gets directed at the women who eschew difficult specialties or who retire (very) early. That anger should be directed at the cartel itself. But to fight the AMA's control of medical licensing, you'd end up fighting TWMNBN, and as we all know, that engenders a serious systematic response.

John, you might do an interesting post some day on how early obstetrics, and the prosecution of shamans and other local healers, was effected: in which a primarily Jewish medical establishment destroyed the tradition of (black, white, Christian) midwives and nurses who offered people excellent, inexpensive, at-home care...until the propaganda machine moved in, terrifying people about childbirth and trauma care, and heavily selling vaccines and preventative care given by signing onto insurance "wait lists," thereby destroying African American and Euro American communities and making them reliant on a minuscule elite with "M.D." after their names.

John Craig said...

Don Tomas --
Interesting, thank you. Before you and High Arka enlightened me I wasn't fully aware of the cartel-like nature of the AMA. I had heard that optometry schools were effectively like that (why does an optometrist need to go to four years of school like a doctor?), and I'd heard the same about veterinarians, it makes perfect sense that med schools would be the same way. I have a hard time believing that law schools are the same way, though. Every year we get far more lawyers than we need, and recent graduates have had a hard time getting jobs. Plus I get the impression that becoming an accredited law school is easier than becoming a med school.

Also, I was under the impression that it was the Democratic party which was in thrall to the ABA, not the GOP. It's usually the GOP pols who from time to time make some noise about getting rid of frivolous lawsuits, but then, as always, nothing happens.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
I wasn't "angry" at the women who quit medicine to raise kids, I think that's a perfectly fine and productive thing to do. I was just raising the question of what should be done about it at the med school end, given that it does happen.

I was evidently out of my depth with this post, I'd really be out of my depth with a post about the evolution of med schools, which I know nothing about.

High Arka said...

The ABA operates differently. Legal education doesn't cost anything except professor's salaries, so that professors can talk, talk, talk. So what the ABA has done is accredit way more law schools than the country needs, using the traditional image of "lawyer" as a ticket to the middle class in order to encourage poor saps to go six figures into government-guaranteed student loan debt. If you want to look into that more, spend some time with this guy's bloglist:

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/

People see legal services as optional, whereas they see medical services as mandatory. By integrating trauma care (car accidents etc.), medical maintenance (anti cholesterol pills etc.), and advanced disease monitoring (cancer care etc.), the AMA has created a brilliant evil: in order to ensure that you're eligible to get care if you have a car wreck, you have to subsidize a massive insurance industry that spreads the costs of your car out over 24 hour monitoring care for Alzheimer's patients. In that, the supply needs to be controlled, or physicians could start performing services off the grid for way-cheap.

And as many people who've gotten basic procedures done in South or Central America knows, the cost of medicinal and dentistry work goes way down--and often, at the basic level, the quality goes way up--when you go outside the western cartels.

For the AMA, though, the education itself isn't the plum. Medical education is expensive to provide because it requires teaching hospitals, with a lot of machines that cost millions of dollars, and facilities to store corpses and organs, etc. So the money has to be made by entrapping the entire society to licensed services, any deviation from which is swiftly and violently punished.

The ABA is in a slow decline. Once the traditional sales pitch of "lawyer = good salary" dies out among the population, they'll stop being able to churn so many people through their diploma mills--the same effects that community colleges and regular universities are beginning to suffer.

The AMA, by contrast, is only growing more powerful. With the ACA, purchase of its shoddy product is now mandatory, enforced by SWAT teams. Anyone who needs a prescription to live has to pay a physician to "renew" it every few months/years, for life. Anyone who wants to have their broken leg X-rayed and set has to pay thousands of dollars to a bunch of jerks who spent years studying cardiology and dermatology, before they'll be allowed to insure themselves against ordinary accidents.

High Arka said...

Oh, no offense; I wasn't referring to you. If it helps, I'm angry at them, but I know it's not really their fault. ;-)

John Craig said...

High Arka --
No offense taken. (If you want to offend me, you have to try REALLY hard.)

You seem to know a lot more about a lot of subjects than I do, and you're embarrassingly better informed about the AMA than I am. I'm also beginning to get the sense that you (and Gardner) are both smarter than me -- though I'm far too egotistical to ever give voice to that irksome suspicion. I still say that your overall frame of mind leans toward the overly paranoid, though often that is just a function of being more knowledgeable (i.e., it's justified).

Anyway, I'm going to defer to you on this subject. Thank you for that mini-education.

Taylor Leland Smith said...

The number of doctors commenting on this post suggests that your readers are well educated. No surprise there.

Med schools are perfectly happy admitting women over men because they do not want to see a world with more doctors. Doctors' salaries are inflated by restricting the supply of doctors. This isn't a secret, the AMA and other associations like it are openly in support of a very restricted supply of doctors for the purpose of maintaining MD wages. The Nobel economist Milton Friedman has written a great deal on this, and if you search hard enough, you'll see that it is a pretty well established fact. With that said, Med schools probably love how convenient male/female affirmative action is in this regard. Not only do they get to look good by admitting 50/50, it also probably pleases the same organizations that pressure them to keep the barriers of entry really high.

Anonymous said...

Good, informative discussion. I had no idea about the AMA and their control.

I think not only is there nothing wrong with the "mommy track" -- I am on it myself -- but it should be a clearer and more obvious option to women from the get-go. Virtually every working mother I know wants to scale back, sometimes way back, but feels she can't afford to. Either financially, or more pertinent to this conversation, it would be the end of her career prospects.

Don't we want smart, educated, responsible (I'll leave it at that) women reproducing? Or only the ones who don't have anything else to do with their lives and populate their environs like bunnies?

-Gardner

John Craig said...

Taylor --
Yes, it's gratifying to have so many smart people reading the blog.

Good point about how the med schools are only too happy to practice a variety of affirmative action that results in even fewer numbers of practicing doctors.

John Craig said...

Gardner --
You're absolutely right, we're on an incredibly dysgenic path right now. The lower IQ's who have babies as an unintended side effect of sex are reproducing like bacteria in a Petri dish while the educated plan ahead, don't have babies until they can support them properly, and have maybe two children apiece. Something has to be done.

Taylor Leland Smith said...

About the dysgenic path: many European countries have responded to low replacement rates with different policies that are intended to encourage more reproduction. Some have gone so far as to actually pay people to have children. These programs have lots of unintended consequences, but more importantly, they are surprisingly ineffective. People who were already going to have children just take advantage of the programs (i.e. the people the petri dish crowd) while those who'd forgone children were unchanged...

In trying to answer the question of why the western world has low replacement rates, some economists have pointed to the welfare state. In many societies, parents rely on their children in retirement. This is still true in most of the world. Social security programs are a huge disincentive to having children. It's been measured and confirmed, empirically. Consider how this is especially exacerbated when parents are not only unlikely to rely on their children for retirement purposes but in fact the opposite occurs, where children rely on their parents even well into adulthood.

So yes, something should be done; get rid of the massive welfare state.

John Craig said...

Taylor --
A similar program has been tried in Singapore, with (I think) a little more success.

jova said...

Females have mbition, but their ambition is to get married and have children, this ambition competes with their ambition for a career....

A recent study in Canada blamed their lack of doctors partly on the rise of women physicians , since female doctors worke less hours, take more leave and retire earlier. Resulting in much lower productivity than male doctors.

The problem is worsening in Canada , as over 50% of the medical students are female..within a decade the productivity of Canadian doctors will result in the equivalent of 1600 less doctors, as females go from32% of the current pool of physicians to 50% within 10 years.

Reminds me , when my wife was pregnant, her obstetrician retired when my wife was 6 months pregnant, we had to find another doctor....she retired because she was 5 months pregnant with her second child...and planned to stay retired to raise her children and try for a third..

John Craig said...

Jova --
Thank you -- finally someone who confirms my theory, rather than rebuts it!

I"m a little surprised how many comments this post has gotten; it was just a little afterthought I had after talking with that college girl. I figured the post on prehistoric man would get more comments, but I guess no one was willing to say anything about that.

Anonymous said...

Most of the pediatricians that my children have seen over the years were women, many of them married with children. When these women had children, they either continued to work full-time or went part-time (such as my own kids' primary pediatrician). I have liked each female pediatrician that my children have seen, but I've liked my kids' own pediatrician the most.

-birdie

jova said...

it is an issue in the UK, since the state pays all cost to train doctors and they now have more females graduating from med school. So they have a doctor shortage, due to too many female doctors.

most female doctors end up working part-time — usually in general practice — and then retire early.
As a result, it is necessary to train two female doctors so they can cover the same amount of work as one full-time colleague.
There is another important issue. Women in hospital medicine tend to avoid the more demanding specialities which require greater commitment, have more antisocial working hours and include responsibility for management

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html#ixzz3i9s7qP9a

John Craig said...

Jova --
That's a problem, but the even bigger problem is that no one is wiling to talk about this honestly for fear of the repercussions.

jova said...

it is a problem , especially since the American population is aging , thus we will need more doctors.

With women now constituting roughly 50 percent of U.S. medical students, a recent AAMC survey of physicians younger than 50 found that 24 percent of female physicians were working part-time, compared with 2 percent of their male colleagues. “Women have child-bearing responsibility and often take off some time to do those other important things. We want to be clear that it is not a bad thing. The reality is women have other responsibilities,” Salsberg says.

Finding a doctor could soon be even harder than paying for one. Various studies have projected a shortfall of 50,000 physicians in the U.S. relative to demand by 2020. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-04-16/are-there-too-many-women-doctors

Women had 1.6 times the odds of reporting burnout compared with men, with the odds of burnout by women increasing by 12% to 15% for each additional 5 hours worked per week over 40 hours (P < .05). Lack of workplace control predicted burnout in women but not in men. There were no gender differences in stress scores; however, logistic regression analysis showed women having 60% greater odds of reporting burnout than men (P < .05). Women were significantly more likely than men to have a score of at least 3 on the burnout scale (26% of women vs 21% of men; P < .05). Parental status, including men and women under the age of 46 years having children under the age of 6, did not predict burnout.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495474/


John Craig said...

Jova --
Thanks for all that info. I guess that some people ARE talking about the problem, though none of them seem to be proposing any sort of solution. I sort of like Rona's solution above, though as she points out it has a dysgenic effect.

The burnout bit is interesting. I wonder what it is about women that makes them more likely to experience this. do they have less focus? Is it a frustrated maternal instinct kicking in? Do they have less need to be seen in a certain (high status) light? I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I do wonder how you would feel if you were born a black female. I know you couldn't care less about it, but I will stop reading your blog.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I'd LIKE to think that if I were a black female I'd still be realistic about racial and gender differences -- and about the hypocrisy in the way those are lied about by the mainstream media. But, if I were black and female, I suppose the odds are that I wouldn't be.

There are some very smart females who responded to this post, by the way, in a very rational and informed manner. (As you can see above.)

Anonymous said...

here's another smart guy that posts his analysis on the news. his most recent post is a bit related to what you wrote (link below). he often espouses the idea that legal system gives an almost unparalleled economic advantage to women who have babies. you might enjoy poking around his blog.


https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/08/12/hillary-clintons-college-affordability-plan/

John Craig said...

Anon --
I like that Mercedes and BMW Affordability Plan. A little surprised to see a conservative blogger with a Harvard Law address.