Give More Nobel Prizes to Women!

The Die Zeit newspaper in Germany takes up an entire page to make the point, that the Nobel Prize winners in every category are predominantly white men: 947 white men versus 17 men of color and 59 women of any race. An obvious instance of sexism and racism, says the article, written by two women, Jelka Lerche and Alena Weil. The Nobel Prize selection committee selects prize-winners on an "einseitige," a one-sided, basis, that favors mostly males.

The entire article consists of the statistical graphics. There is no text; but the obvious inference one can draw from the stats is that the Nobel Prize committee needs to implement quotas, so that more women and minorities will win prizes. The article also suggests that the committee has a sexist and racist predisposition. Do the authors of the article suggest parity, one prize for a woman, for every prize given to a man? Or a prize for a person of color, for every prize given to a white? Maybe they will also demand that more feminists stand on selection committees to keep them from veering into sexism and racism again.

At age 70, I really don't care that much how the Nobel Prize committee resolves this problem, but I will carry to my grave a dislike for moralists and arm-twisters dictating how private organizations staff their committees, and how they make their decisions. I carry in my mind the memory of Nazi- Germany and the demand of the Nazis that every private organization have Nazi-party members on its staff to maintain organizational loyalty to the Party and to assuage Nazi-paranoia and its need for control. The intentions of Lerche and Weil worry me especially, inasmuch as both authors are Germans, with this Nazi legacy in their past.

Why not fund a separate organization that especially supports female prize-winners? Because it isn't the Nobel Prize. Feminists and people of color involved in the moralizing and arm-twisting do not like to talk about "separate," or "different." They want everyone in the same organizations together, with themselves twisting arms and making the decisions for everyone else.

Why would any sensible people want such a system? The answer is that they don't want it! Sensible people only capitulate to the moralizing and arm-twisting to avoid conflict, which worries me more than anything. The feminist anger, paranoia, and browbeating intimidates right-thinking people into submission.

Why not have separate countries for people who want the moralizing and arm-twisting. That has to be a no-brainer! If the feminists don't want separate prize-selection committees, they surely won't want separate countries. So, let's face it. The feminist effort is basically fascist, geared toward the domination of the society. This has happened only gradually. Don't bother to look for a "Führer" in this bunch.

School-psychologist Susan Pinker came into this situation in 2008 with her book Sexual Paradox. In it, she argued "Men are more extreme," as the German magazine Der Spiegel, which interviewed Pinker, aptly titled it. Not only do more men win the Nobel Prize, but more men also sit in prison; more boys sit in detention at school; more boys have learning disabilities; and more men are simply scary kooks who look at us funny.

If women want more Nobel Prizes, maybe men need to demand reciprocity, that more women sit in detention and deal with learning disabilities. Pinker's explantion for why more women aren't doing this already is that women occupy a more stable middle-ground, while men cavort in all directions. Women should consider themselves lucky.