Selective Equity

Editor's Note: A follow-up to last week’s There Can Be Only One, which offered the polar-opposites difference between equality and equity.

Have you ever heard our Best-and-Brightest lament that there aren't enough women bricklayers? That the gender gap in that trade, in plumbing, in auto body repair, or in roofing is so huge as to be proof of systemic sexism, and therefore ripe for "equity" remediation and forced placement of women?

I'd bet "no," despite that these jobs are 97-99+% male-dominated.

Why might that be?

For a hint, ponder Karl Marx's infamous aphorism "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Think about the socialists and other equity-focused sorts in your sphere of acquaintance, and ponder how many of them figure they and those they champion are always of the second half of that sentence, and target ‘someone else’ for the first half.

You don't really need to, do you?

You already know that the demands for change always benefit the 'equitizers.' Who among them has said "my true passion is art, but if the State tells me that my six-foot-four big-muscle body is best suited to ditch-digging, I'll grab that shovel?"

Yes, indeed, "equity" is always about taking, via force if necessary, with "people I don't like" being forced to give (not really giving if it's coerced, is it?).

So it goes with equity in the professions.

As Douglas Murray noted in this video, the Left's fixation is only on "high status professions." You rarely hear about equity in the manual trades and never in unskilled labor, but you certainly hear about it with regard to corporate boardrooms and certain other top-tier careers.

You also never hear about men being underrepresented in such professions as nursing. We have been told that coerced diversity is not only about overcoming structural bigotries, it provides benefit in that a spectrum of identities will bring a spectrum of experiences, worldviews, and outlooks. So, why haven't they tried to shoehorn more men into nursing?

Again, we know why.

All the high-dudgeon outrage and pretend-principle about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion masks a fundamental of human nature. People look out for themselves and the things they decide are important, and everyone else can go scratch.

We always hear about the gender wage gap, despite it disappearing when the full range of (non-discriminatory) variables are considered, but we never hear about the death gap. 92% of occupational deaths are male, but we never hear mention of a wage premium associated with or attributed to that reality. Nor do we see women clamoring to go into high-death-rate occupations, e.g. commercial fishermen, lumberjacks, roofers and other construction workers, trash collectors, miners, and delivery/truck drivers. Just for completeness, I’ll mention the seeming anomaly on that list - aircraft pilots ranks #2 - but that ranking is all about private pilots, not the high-status commercial airline pilot job that runs about 95% male. Police officers, by the way, rank 22nd, behind landscapers and ahead of equipment maintenance workers.

We also always hear about the disparity at the top of the "genius" jobs, but never about the disparity at the bottom of the intelligence spectrum - the ‘injustice’ of more men of very low intelligence (with increased homelessness as one result). And, never a mention that intelligence distributions are different for men vs women (the men's bell curve is flatter) as the explanation for that disparity.

When we view the totality of "inequities," we get an even clearer signal that this demand for equity rather than equality is about gaming the system for selfish benefit. People may convince themselves that the system is unfair or underfunded, but how many of them pay extra taxes or willingly diminish their positions or prospects in life?

The handful that do are usually in a position not to feel any pain from their contributions.

Eric Hoffer noted that:

"Equity," breaking the rule, started as a racket.