We are capitalists – you’re welcome!

https://iea.org.uk/ | Kate Andrews

I was asked on a podcast this week if capitalism and communism can co-exist.

The short answer is, yes: capitalism has created wealthy, liberal and diverse societies, which tolerate a range of ideologies – even ones as fanciful and hazardous as communism.

But the similarities end there. The freedom that capitalism inspires and the force that communism requires will forever be at odds.

Yet despite overwhelming historical evidence that the former leads to flourishing, and the latter to disaster, sympathies for the hammer and sickle seem to be on the rise.

Take Novara Media editor Ash Sarkar, who made waves recently, after announcing proudly on Good Morning Britain that she was a full-blown communist, and chiding the host Piers Morgan for assuming her to be your average left-winger.

The result has been weeks of debate on the merits of an economic order whose attempted implementation has resulted in nearly 100m deaths worldwide.

It seems almost farcical that this tried, tested, and catastrophically failed system of belief could rear its ugly head once more. But it has, and we can’t ignore it.

Young people are increasingly sympathetic towards communism compared to older generations. According to one record poll, “a third of millennials (32 per cent) falsely believe more people were killed under George W Bush than under Joseph Stalin”.

It doesn’t help that communism often eludes the historical scrutiny applied to other economic orders, with defenders claiming that the problem with Marxism is simply that “it’s never really been tried”.

Ask them how they’d implement their system differently to the USSR – or East Germany, or Venezuela, or North Korea – to ensure utopia instead of mass murder, and you rarely get more than catchphrases or buzzwords about “economic democracy” and “ownership by the people”.

The very simple answer is that there is no answer: structuring an economy to prioritise the collective in every circumstance cannot be done without brute force.

There is also a strange sympathy given to the intentions of communism, despite the horrific realities of the outcomes it wreaks. Communism gets an easier ride than its far-right equivalent – fascism – because its goals are seemingly kinder, well-meaning, and rooted in a sense of equality.

Yet even its intentions, when properly analysed, become deeply sinister. There is nothing fair or noble about stripping individuals of their autonomy and freedom. Prohibiting people from acting as traders and profit-makers is an attempt to destroy an innate sense of entrepreneurship and ambition that is fundamentally engrained in humanity.

But perhaps the biggest boost for communism has come from our failure to make the case for capitalism – an ideology that, though by no means perfect, is by far the best elevator we’ve created to lift people into prosperity.

I’ve been making my way through the latest primer to be published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, written by one of the UK’s most renowned experts on capitalism, Dr Eamonn Butler. His simple and honest assessment of capitalism’s strengths and weaknesses provides plenty of food for thought, but even more importantly, reasons to remain extremely optimistic about the future.

While communism has sent tens of millions to their deaths, capitalism has lifted over one billion people out of poverty in a quarter of a century alone. Free enterprise has raised our standard of living in miraculous ways, and allowed for individualism to thrive alongside a world that is becoming increasingly connected.

Millennials are the generation of AirBnB and Deliveroo – the biggest consumers of what capitalism has to offer. Perhaps one day, our stated preferences will line up with our revealed preferences. Until then, I hope my peers enjoy purchasing “I’m a Communist, You Idiot” T-shirts for £20 a pop. We are Capitalists, You’re Welcome.

A version of this article first appeared in City AM. 

Kate Andrews

Advertisements

100 Times Jeremy Corbyn Sided with Terrorists

https://order-order.com/ | Guido Fawkes

 

  1. Invited two IRA members to parliament two weeks after the Brighton bombing.
  2. Attended Bloody Sunday commemoration with bomber Brendan McKenna.
  3. Attended meeting with Provisional IRA member Raymond McCartney.
  4. Hosted IRA linked Mitchell McLaughlin in parliament.
  5. Spoke alongside IRA terrorist Martina Anderson.
  6. Attended Sinn Fein dinner with IRA bomber Gerry Kelly.
  7. Chaired Irish republican event with IRA bomber Brendan MacFarlane.
  8. Attended Bobby Sands commemoration honouring IRA terrorists.
  9. Stood in minute’s silence for IRA gunmen shot dead by the SAS.
  10. Refused to condemn the IRA in Sky News interview.
  11. Refused to condemn the IRA on Question Time.
  12. Refused to condemn IRA violence in BBC radio interview.
  13. Signed EDM after IRA Poppy massacre massacre blaming Britain for the deaths.
  14. Arrested while protesting in support of Brighton bomber’s co-defendants.
  15. Lobbied government to improve visiting conditions for IRA killers.
  16. Attended Irish republican event calling for armed conflict against Britain.
  17. Hired suspected IRA man Ronan Bennett as a parliamentary assistant.
  18. Hired another aide closely linked to several convicted IRA terrorists.
  19. Heavily involved with IRA sympathising newspaper London Labour Briefing.
  20. Put up £20,000 bail money for IRA terror suspect Roisin McAliskey.
  21. Didn’t support IRA ceasefire.
  22. Said Hamas and Hezbollah are his “friends“.
  23. Called for Hamas to be removed from terror banned list.
  24. Called Hamas “serious and hard-working“.
  25. Attended wreath-laying at grave of Munich massacre terrorist.
  26. Attended conference with Hamas and PFLP.
  27. Photographed smiling with Hezbollah flag.
  28. Attended rally with Hezbollah and Al-Muhajiroun.
  29. Repeatedly shared platforms with PFLP plane hijacker.
  30. Hired aide who praised Hamas’ “spirit of resistance“.
  31. Accepted £20,000 for state TV channel of terror-sponsoring Iranian regime.
  32. Opposed banning Britons from travelling to Syria to fight for ISIS.
  33. Defended rights of fighters returning from Syria.
  34. Said ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted.
  35. Compared fighters returning from Syria to Nelson Mandela.
  36. Said the death of Osama Bin Laden was a “tragedy“.
  37. Wouldn’t sanction drone strike to kill ISIS leader.
  38. Voted to allow ISIS fighters to return from Syria.
  39. Opposed shoot to kill.
  40. Attended event organised by terrorist sympathising IHRC.
  41. Signed letter defending Lockerbie bombing suspects.
  42. Wrote letter in support of conman accused of fundraising for ISIS.
  43. Spoke of “friendship” with Mo Kozbar, who called for destruction of Israel.
  44. Attended event with Abdullah Djaballah, who called for holy war against UK.
  45. Called drone strikes against terrorists “obscene”.
  46. Boasted about “opposing anti-terror legislation”.
  47. Said laws banning jihadis from returning to Britain are “strange”.
  48. Accepted £5,000 donation from terror supporter Ted Honderich.
  49. Accepted £2,800 trip to Gaza from banned Islamist organisation Interpal.
  50. Called Ibrahim Hewitt, extremist and chair of Interpal, a “very good friend”.
  51. Accepted two more trips from the pro-Hamas group PRC.
  52. Speaker at conference hosted by pro-Hamas group MEMO.
  53. Met Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh several times.
  54. Hosted meeting with Mousa Abu Maria of banned group Islamic Jihad.
  55. Patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign – marches attended by Hezbollah.
  56. Compared Israel to ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.
  57. Said we should not make “value judgements” about Britons who fight for ISIS.
  58. Received endorsement from Hamas.
  59. Attended event with Islamic extremist Suliman Gani.
  60. Chaired Stop the War, who praised “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS.
  61. Praised Raed Salah, who was jailed for inciting violence in Israel.
  62. Signed letter defending jihadist advocacy group Cage.
  63. Met Dyab Jahjah, who praised the killing of British soldiers.
  64. Shared platform with representative of extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
  65. Compared ISIS to US military in interview on Russia Today.
  66. Opposed proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
  67. Attended conference which called on Iraqis to kill British soldiers.
  68. Attended Al-Quds Day demonstration in support of destruction of Israel.
  69. Supported Hamas and ISIS-linked Viva Palestina group.
  70. Attended protest with Islamic extremist Moazzam Begg.
  71. Made the “case for Iran” at event hosted by Khomeinist group.
  72. Photographed smiling with Azzam Tamimi, who backed suicide bombings.
  73. Photographed with Abdel Atwan, who sympathised with attacks on US troops.
  74. Said Hamas should “have tea with the Queen”.
  75. Attended ‘Meet the Resistance’ event with Hezbollah MP Hussein El Haj.
  76. Attended event with Haifa Zangana, who praised Palestinian “mujahideen”.
  77. Defended the infamous anti-Semitic Hamas supporter Stephen Sizer.
  78. Attended event with pro-Hamas and Hezbollah group Naturei Karta.
  79. Backed Holocaust denying anti-Zionist extremist Paul Eisen.
  80. Photographed with Abdul Raoof Al Shayeb, later jailed for terror offences.
  81. Mockedanti-terror hysteria” while opposing powers for security services.
  82. Named on speakers list for conference with Hamas sympathiser Ismail Patel.
  83. Criticised drone strike that killed Jihadi John.
  84. Said the 7/7 bombers had been denied “hope and opportunity”.
  85. Said 9/11 was “manipulated” to make it look like bin Laden was responsible.
  86. Failed to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks.
  87. Called Columbian terror group M-19 “comrades”.
  88. Blamed beheading of Alan Henning on Britain.
  89. Gave speech in support of Gaddafi regime.
  90. Signed EDM spinning for Slobodan Milosevic.
  91. Blamed Tunisia terror attack on “austerity”.
  92. Voted against banning support for the IRA.
  93. Voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act three times during the Troubles.
  94. Voted against emergency counter-terror laws after 9/11.
  95. Voted against stricter punishments for being a member of a terror group.
  96. Voted against criminalising the encouragement of terrorism.
  97. Voted against banning al-Qaeda.
  98. Voted against outlawing the glorification of terror.
  99. Voted against control orders.
  100. Voted against increased funding for the security services to combat terrorism.

Quite something when you put it all down in one place…

Karl Marx Was An Intellectual Godfather of Adolph Hitler

http://policydynamics.net | 

It’s often argued that National Socialism’s roots partly lie in Friedrich Nietzsche’s notions of “God is dead”, master and slave morality, and the Übermensch. But when it comes to the Nazi’s anti-Semitism, Karl Marx provided a lot of intellectual firepower.

Disturblingly, one rarely hears about Karl Marx’s anti-Semitism. Modern-day champions of Marxism never bring it up. Professors sympathetic to Marxism don’t assign reading material on the subject. The media never talk about it.

But it’s there. And perhaps no greater evidence of this lies in Marx’s essay, “On The Jewish Question”. Following, in all their repugnance, are excerpts therefrom.

“What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.”

“In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

“What was, in itself, the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need. Egoism”

“The god of practical need and self interest is money….The god of the Jews has been secularized and has become the god of this world.”

“The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew.…As soon as society succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its conditions – the Jew becomes impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object.”

“The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

There’s a reason for the word “socialism” in National Socialism. That becomes clearer when the full name of the party is written out: The National Socialist German Workers Party.

To quote Adolph Hitler, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Planks in the Nazi party platform fell right in line with those of conventional socialism/communism. The Nazis demanded:

  • the abolition of all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work;
  • the nationalization of businesses involved in cartels;
  • the communalization of department stores, to distribute to small business;
  • land reform, confiscation from owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose, the abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of land speculation.

So Nazism was much like conventional socialism, with its anti-business and anti-financial attitudes, and demonization the affluent. Nazism particularly demonized a subset of affluent people (many of whom weren’t even affluent), the Jews. Envious Germans prior to and during the Nazi period hurled accusations exactly in line with Karl Marx’s slanders, smearing them as swindlers and worshiping money. Never mind that their hard work, high levels of education, willingness to take risks, and willingness to be merchants early on (upon which other members of society looked down) tended to have a positive effect on income. Success breeds contempt.

Socialism/communism blames the world’s ills on economically better off people. But in some societies those people tend to be members of a certain religion or ethnic minority group – be they Jews in Nazi Germany, Armenians in early-twentieth-century Turkey, Chinese in Indonesia, or Tutsis in Rwanda. That makes them easy to identify and pick out. The minority group becomes synonymous with the wealthy class. By scapegoating the rich, they’re scapegoating the minority group.

So Marx in the nineteenth century helped sow the seeds for both Nazism and Communism in the twentieth.

Some say Marx was the most influential thinker who ever lived. If you measure that by totaling the number of deaths resulting from Nazism and Communism – over a hundred million – then yes, he was the most influential.


Patrick Chisholm is editor of PolicyDynamics.

 

Feminist group admits ‘pay gap’ is caused by women’s choices

www.campusreform.org | Toni Airaksinen

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) has finally admitted that the “gender pay gap” is caused primarily by women’s choices, not discrimination.

 

  • In fact, the AAUW’s own research suggests that only about 7% of the observed pay gap can be attributed to discrimination, with simple economic factors accounting for the remainder.

 

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) has finally admitted that the “gender pay gap” is caused by women’s choices.

In a recent article on the gender pay gap, AAUW Senior Researcher Kevin Miller concedes that the pay disparity between women and men isn’t caused primarily by discrimination, but rather by the personal and professional choices that women make.

“The gender pay gap is…not an estimate of the effect of discrimination.”   

These choices include the tendency of women to work fewer hours to focus on “domestic work” and accept “reduced job tenure resulting from breaks in labor-force participation to raise children.”

[RELATED: AAUW tells white feminists to ‘confront your privilege’]

Miller even notes that women tend to choose lower-paying jobs than do men, pointing out that dangerous jobs such as “construction, manufacturing, and transport” are predominantly done by men, while “most workers in health care and education occupations are women.”

The problem is that male-dominated professions tend to offer higher pay, he says, asserting that “parking lot attendants (usually men) are paid more to watch cars than full-time child care workers (usually women) are paid to care for children, even though child care workers are increasingly being pushed to earn a college credential.”

Citing data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, though, he also confirms that not only are women more likely to work part-time, but also that “among full-time workers, men work longer hours on average than do women.”

[RELATED: ‘#FeministHalloween’ costumes defy ‘internalized misogyny’]

While Miller cites women’s choices as the cause of the pay gap, he doesn’t suggest that women’s choices can solve it.

In response to a common question the AAUW receives regarding whether women should “choose higher-paying jobs,” Miller is mum on whether this could make a difference, merely noting that women can’t avoid  “societal bias by choosing a career in an occupation that is higher paying.”

The AAUW, which celebrates seven different equal pay days, has campaigned relentlessly over the past few years to argue that the gender pay gap is due to discrimination, but this appears to be the first article in which the organization takes a more nuanced approach to the issue.

[RELATED: AAUW: Humans will ‘walk on Mars’ before gender gap closes]

Indeed, Miller acknowledges that to the extent that discrimination against women actually does influence the pay gap, only about “7 percent” is explained by gender, according to AAUW research, while another study pegged the figure at 8 percent.

“The gender pay gap is an estimate of the actual gap in pay between men and women, not an estimate of the effect of discrimination,” he explains, though he then goes on to argue that discrimination is still a problem.

“These estimates of the gap due to gender bias and discrimination are smaller than the overall gender pay gap, but the gap due to bias and discrimination is still substantial,” he concludes. “Regardless of how much of the pay gap is due to gender bias and pay discrimination, the size of the overall gap—the difference in actual pay received by women and men—is still an important indicator of the economic inequality faced by women in the United States.”

Campus Reform reached out to the AAUW for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Safe spaces and ‘ze’ badges: My bewildering year at a US university

www.spectator.co.uk |

Fear of causing offence on campus is stifling free thought – as I’ve found to my cost

The student in front of me, an Australian, found this hilarious: ‘Last time I checked, I was a girl.’ Her joke was met with stony silence. Later I realised why: expressing bewilderment at the obsession with pronouns might count as a ‘micro-aggression’. Next stop, ‘transphobia’.

It was soon obvious to my fellow students that I was not quite with the programme. In a class discussion early in my first semester, I made the mistake of mentioning that I believed in objective standards in art. Some art is great, some isn’t, I said; not all artists are equally talented. This was deemed an undemocratic opinion and I was given a nickname: the cultural fascist. I’ve tried to take it affectionately.

After a year on campus, on a course entitled ‘Cultural Reporting and Criticism’, I still feel unable to speak freely, let alone critically. Although it doesn’t apply to my own course, friends have told me about ‘trigger warnings’ that caution they are about to be exposed to certain ideas; the threat of micro-aggressions (i.e. unintended insults) makes frank discourse impossible. Then there is the infamous ‘safe space’ — a massage-circle, Play-Doh-making haven — where students are protected from offence (and, therefore, intellectual challenge).

During class discussions, I’ve learned to discreetly scan my classmates’ faces for signs that they might be fellow free-thinkers. A slight head tilt at the mention of Islamophobia, a gentle questioning of what exactly is meant by ‘toxic masculinity’. I was thrilled to see a scribbled note — ‘This is utter shit’ — on someone’s copy of one of the reading requirements, Maggie Nelson’s The Argonauts (an introduction to queer theory). In this way, I found the members of my secret non-conformist book club.

We met in a disused convent in Hell’s Kitchen and discussed campus-censored ideas. We read Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe, Laura Kipnis’s Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus and Walter Benn Michaels’s The Trouble With Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality. We were a diverse group: a Catholic woman, a black conservative man, an anti-theist neoconservative, a Protestant libertarian, and a quick-witted Spanish contrarian. We were united in agreeing that we should be free to disagree. We made our own unsafe space, and at the end of each meeting, we were invigorated and parted on good terms.


 

US has 11 separate ‘nations’ with entirely different cultures

businessinsider.com | | Jul. 27, 2015

 

11 Nations Colin Woodward and Tufts/Brian Stauffer

In his fourth book, “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures in North America,” award-winning author Colin Woodard identifies 11 distinct cultures that have historically divided the US.

“The country has been arguing about a lot of fundamental things lately including state roles and individual liberty,” Woodard, a Maine native who won the 2012 George Polk Awardfor investigative reporting, told Business Insider.

“[But] in order to have any productive conversation on these issues,” he added, “you need to know where you come from. Once you know where you are coming from it will help move the conversation forward.”

Here’s how Woodard describes each nation:

Yankeedom

Encompassing the entire Northeast north of New York City and spreading through Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Yankeedom values education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and citizen participation in government as a shield against tyranny. Yankees are comfortable with government regulation. Woodard notes that Yankees have a “Utopian streak.” The area was settled by radical Calvinists.

New Netherland

A highly commercial culture, New Netherland is “materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience,” according to Woodard. It is a natural ally with Yankeedom and encompasses New York City and northern New Jersey. The area was settled by the Dutch.

new york city New York City is located in Woodward’s New Netherland. Flickr / Andrés Nieto Porras

The Midlands

Settled by English Quakers, The Midlands are a welcoming middle-class society that spawned the culture of the “American Heartland.” Political opinion is moderate, and government regulation is frowned upon. Woodard calls the ethnically diverse Midlands “America’s great swing region.” Within the Midlands are parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.

Tidewater

Tidewater was built by the young English gentry in the area around the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina. Starting as a feudal society that embraced slavery, the region places a high value on respect for authority and tradition. Woodard notes that Tidewater is in decline, partly because “it has been eaten away by the expanding federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk.”

Greater Appalachia

Colonized by settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Greater Appalachia is stereotyped as the land of hillbillies and rednecks. Woodard says Appalachia values personal sovereignty and individual liberty and is “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike.” It sides with the Deep South to counter the influence of federal government. Within Greater Appalachia are parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, and Texas.

Louisville Louisville, Kentucky, is located in Woodward’s Greater Appalachia. Flickr / Peter Dedina

Deep South

The Deep South was established by English slave lords from Barbados and was styled as a West Indies-style slave society, Woodard notes. It has a very rigid social structure and fights against government regulation that threatens individual liberty. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina are all part of the Deep South.

El Norte

Composed of the borderlands of the Spanish-American empire, El Norte is “a place apart” from the rest of America, according to Woodard. Hispanic culture dominates in the area, and the region values independence, self-sufficiency, and hard work above all else. Parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are in El Norte.

The Left Coast

Colonized by New Englanders and Appalachian Midwesterners, the Left Coast is a hybrid of “Yankee utopianism and Appalachian self-expression and exploration,” Woodard says, adding that it is the staunchest ally of Yankeedom. Coastal California, Oregon, and Washington are in the Left Coast.

San Francisco City and Homes San Francisco is a natural fit for Woodward’s Left Coast. Shutterstock / prochasson frederic

The Far West

The conservative west. Developed through large investment in industry, yet where inhabitants continue to “resent” the Eastern interests that initially controlled that investment. Among Far West states are Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. 

New France

A pocket of liberalism nestled in the Deep South, its people are consensus driven, tolerant, and comfortable with government involvement in the economy. Woodard says New France is among the most liberal places in North America. New France is focused around New Orleans in Louisiana as well as the Canadian province of Quebec.

First Nation

Made up of Native Americans, the First Nation’s members enjoy tribal sovereignty in the US. Woodard says the territory of the First Nations is huge, but its population is under 300,000, most of whose people live in the northern reaches of Canada.

Woodard says that among these 11 nations, Yankeedom and the Deep South exert the most influence and are constantly competing with each other for the hearts and minds of the other nations.

“We are trapped in brinkmanship because there is not a lot of wiggle room between Yankee and Southern Culture,” Woodard says. “Those two nations would never see eye to eye on anything besides an external threat.”

TEd Cruz filibuster In 2013, Ted Cruz infamously held the Senate floor for 21 hours in an attempt to filibuster Obamacare. AP

Woodard also believes the nation is likely to become more polarized, even though America is becoming a more diverse place every day. He says this is because people are “self-sorting.”

“People choose to move to places where they identify with  the values,”  Woodard says. “Red minorities go south and blue minorities go north to be in the majority. This is why blue states are getting bluer and red states are getting redder and the middle is getting smaller.”

Why do women still earn a lot less than men?

The Economist

Why do women still earn a lot less than men?

When they do the same job, though, their salaries are practically the same

PAYROLL clerks across Britain are busier than usual. By April next year large employers must publish data on the gap in pay between their male and female workers. Many have already complied. In America, by contrast, President Donald Trump recently halted a similar rule that would have taken effect next year. Such requirements are meant to energise efforts towards equal pay for men and women. The data suggest that a new approach is needed. In the OECD, a group of rich and middle-income countries, median wages for women working full time are 85% of those for men. Why do women still earn so much less?

Contrary to popular belief, it is not because employers pay women less than men for doing the same jobs. According to data from 25 countries, gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women earn 98% of the wages of men who are in the same roles at the same employers. Women, however, outnumber men in lower-tier jobs, such as secretarial and administrative roles, whereas men predominate in senior positions. And women cluster in occupations and industries that pay lower salaries overall. Primary-school teachers in the OECD, for example, earn nearly 20% less than the average for university graduates. In the European Union nearly 70% of working women are in occupations where at least 60% of employees are female. In America, the four jobs done by the biggest numbers of women—teacher, nurse, secretary and health aide—are all at l

The main reason why women are less likely than men to reach higher-level positions is that they are their children’s primary carers. In eight countries polled by The Economist and YouGov earlier this year, 44-75% of women with children living at home said they had scaled back at work after becoming mothers—by working fewer hours or by switching to a less demanding job, such as one requiring less travel or overtime. Only 13-37% of fathers said they had done so, and more than half of those men said their partner had also scaled back. This pattern means that men get a better shot at a pay rise or a promotion than their female colleagues, and are less likely to be in jobs for which they are overqualified. A recent study estimated that in America women’s future wages fall, on average, by 4% per child, and by 10% per child in the case of the highest-earning, most skilled white women. In Britain, a mother’s wages fall by 2% for each year she is out of the workforce, and by twice as much if she has good school-leaving qualifications.

Women’s lower salaries mean that they often fall into poverty when they divorce or are widowed. Lack of financial independence prevents some from leaving abusive partners. Policies and workplace norms that make it easier for men to split parental duties equally with their partners can tip the scale. Parents, for their part, need to instil in their children the idea that they can be anything—and not only if they are girls. Gender equality will remain elusive until boys are as excited as girls about becoming teachers, nurses and full-time parents.