How would the debate look like of Norwegian women lived shorter than men and commit more often suicide? And almost only the women died in workplace accidents?

What if they had a bigger chance to end up in jail, become drug addict, or never have a partner and children? And the difference was apparent already in the school age: the girls hung in reading and mathematics, one of the three dropped out of high school, and only 10-25 per cent of the students of medicine, psychology and law were women?

Stupid question. There would have been outcry and a full alarm in all channels. About the betrayal against the girls, the women and gender equality. Activists would have dressed up in dramatic clothing in front of the Castle. Politicians would put the face in indignant folds. “So we can’t have it.”

They would therefore react much like they do now. When women don’t win humorpriser. When something very few pregnant women must talk with the board before they can opt out of one of the two fetuses. When law firms have a low share of women among the partners. When no men’s soccer practiced by women. Even if a dramaserie on TV shows that it is possible!

it May be that girls more than boys believe it is possible to work by itself? Comment

No kvinneproblem is too small or too sought to be a social problem. No mannsproblem is too large to be ignored. So it has more or less remained until folkehelsedirektør Camilla Stoltenberg in 2017 designated utdanningsgapet in the men’s disfavor to “one of the big changes in society, in line with eldrebølgen, immigration, urbanization, and the emancipation of women.”

the Boys make it worse at school than girls in almost all developed countries. But no one has a national policy to reduce the difference. In Norway the boys since the 70’s been the best in only one subject: the Gym. It is the subject that provides the least impact in kunnskapssamfunnet. This has some schools solved by introducing the written tasks in physical education. When the girls are the best there too.

For the idea on lifting the boys is obviously new and rar. Stoltenberg-the committee has received a lot of positive attention, but also striking many complaints: The svartmaler the boys and make them losers. They say that the boys must be out the girls. “Young people are too different that it makes sense to divide them into two major groups.” You are the world. But none of the critics are using such arguments in the reverse case – when the statistics is poor for the girls.

It’s also not that NOU-a is unyansert or focus on the extremes. The selection points to a pervasive kjønnsforskjell on all flinkhetsnivåer. And at the time of selection: Characters in 10. class. Then located the boys after the girls in self-regulation and language development. It makes the entry costs to the further education system are unfairly distributed. The guys take the girls again in ripening later, some compensates with the family resources of the church, but many – and increasingly more – to fall through.

Small biological differences can thus have major consequences for the individual’s lifespan, for the future of work and kjønnsmarked, for the entire development. It is intellectually exciting and politically engaging material. Just not for those who work with equality and gender balance of full-time: Kjønnsforskere.

The worst folkehelseforslaget in recent, Norwegian time Debate

Nine out of ten kjønnsforskere are women. Ten out of ten have a kvinneperspektiv. The man is the norm and power. The woman is “the other sex”, the object and the victim, she as trapped and held down. This is grunnfortellingen. When the fit is not the story of losing the boys, and must be rejected as a “simplification”.

Harriet Bjerrum Nielsen, nestoren in the academic community, who have researched the school, has written a whole series of newspaper articles against gutteperspektivet (see here, here, here, here and here). All of the same read: the Squeamishness is ready, the arguments are not.

write into in a tradition. In 2009 came something as unusual as a report on men. It took Mari Teigen, the current leader of the CORE, the center for likestillingsforskning, very cause for concern:

“Why draws up the government, 30 years after the gender equality act was adopted, a gender equality policy only for men? What is the problem with men and gender equality? (…) Taperdebatt about men and gender equality has been hverdagskost in the public debate. Therefore, it can be easy to forget that such understandings break with the main line of the established equality policies. Cf. likestillingslovens mission statement, where the purpose of the act is to promote equality between the sexes, particularly with a view to improving the position of women.”

This is true. The law requires indeed that the equality should have kvinnefokus. Thus has the act been used to stop everything from leseprosjekt for boys in kindergarten to affirmative action to men on the kvinnedominerte studies.

In 2010 was 135 000 women at Norwegian universities and university colleges, and only 87 000 men. Astounding? Unfortunate? No, far from it, according to the then forskningsminister Tora Aasland (SV): “This is the desired development, and an important part of the likestillingsprosessen. The increase of female students is definitely not a problem. We need diversity of wise heads.”

Strong kvinneovervekt is thus “equality” and “diversity”. But the minister then still one problem: “We miss more women in professorstillinger, where the man still dominates.”

Quite. Problemfokus should always be on the male-dominated peaks. Although men in all the years “dominated” also at the bottom of society. Even if no one knows about the low share of women among top executives at all due to discrimination. Although some peaks are kvinnedominerte (check the “diversity” among the leaders of the coalition parties). And even though man’s days on the other peaks are known.

the Statistics of the phds leaves no doubt that women will come in the majority among professors. If they want to. The development goes on by itself. Doing the same development that provides a growing number of boys and men weakened the faith of the community, and that politicians are also working for them.

Amazingly enough, we do not know why girls beat guys at school Comment