“If inequality in things that matter is important, there is a basic inequality that the worriers about inequality should be paying attention to: the inequality in life expectancy between men and women. In 2005, life expectancy at birth was almost seven percent higher for American women than for American men (80.4 years for women vs. 75.2 years for men). Governments could certainly reduce this life-expectancy inequality by redistributing medical research funding on women’s health to research on men’s health, and general medical care funding from women to men. Consider that men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than women are from breast cancer. Yet in 2005 federal expenditures for prostate cancer research were $390 million compared to $698 million for breast cancer research, and the American Cancer Society contributed almost three times as much for breast cancer research ($98 million) as for prostate cancer research ($36 million).

When I talk to people, I find that they generally agree with, and rarely strongly oppose, forcible government transfers of income from the rich to the poor to reduce income inequality. But when I suggest that the government transfer medical expenditures from women to men to reduce life-expectancy inequality, I get a very different reaction. Often, the listener will simply give me a strange look and quickly depart. Those who do respond verbally, however, typically say that I couldn’t possibly be serious because my idea is outrageously silly. I agree. It is silly. But I am completely serious in suggesting it.”

More at the Library of Economics and Liberty.

Comment:

To forestall anyone who writes to me anxiously that this sort of argument – even tongue-in-cheek – is dangerously sexist and anti-feminist, let me just say I am a feminist, if feminism means advocating that women be treated as individuals and as fully human. I am enough of a feminist to recognize that women and men are biologically and culturally different and have different histories that need to be taken into account.  

But if feminism means declaring the other half of the species the enemy –  and some of what is passed off as progressive opinion on this topic is just that – I’ll say no to the label. There’s a kind of feminism out there that’s just public posturing by people who get social and economic benefits from doing so that they wouldn’t be able to get otherwise.

And if they were to gain equal benefits from holding the opposite bias, they would switch sides in an instant….

Note: I said some progressive opinion on this…