Jodie Gummow, a "senior fellow" at Alternet.org, takes a feminist cheap shot at America: "The World Economic Forum released its annual Global Gender Gap Report for 2013 measuring gender disparity between men and women around the world . . . and disappointingly the United States didn't even make it in the top 20!"

The report, as per Gummow, ranks countries "across four primary areas including economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival." It uses a 1-point scale, with "1 representing total gender equality and 0 depicting inequality." The U.S. gets a 0.7392, "which is actually worse than the score it received the year before when it was ranked 22nd."

This exercise is silly in many ways, the funniest of which is the false precision. In reality, "gender equality" is not susceptible to quantitative measurement. The WEF derives its number by applying a made-up formula to an arbitrarily chosen group of data sets such as sex ratios within national legislatures.

The notion of "total gender equality" is a meaningless abstraction. To continue with the simple example, what would be the composition of a legislature with "total gender equality"? Half men, half women? Would it reflect the sex ratio of the population as a whole (which in most countries is more than 50% female), the sex ratio of the population old enough to be eligible for election (which would be tilted still further to the distaff side), or the sex ratio at birth (which is majority male almost everywhere)?

It's true that by any conceivable standard of "equality" the U.S. Congress, 18.3% female according to Gummow, would fall short. But the example is illustrative of the broader conceptual problem, which is that the sexes are intrinsically different, and any effort to impose "equality" by one measure is likely to reduce it by others.

How, after all, would one go about increasing the number of women in legislatures? The most heavy-handed approach would be by imposing outright quotas, as some Third World countries have done. But if quotas are necessary to achieve "equality" by whichever standard, that means either men are more inclined than women to seek office, voters (who are majority-female in most countries) are more inclined to elect men than women, or both. Compensating for that requires unequal conditions on male and female office-seekers--which is to say, discrimination against men.

That objection is easily dismissed by the typical contemporary feminist, who is interested in reducing only those inequalities with respect to which women are at a disadvantage. But when you try to make women "equal" by one measure, the result is often to make them "unequal" by another.

Getty Images

Gummow lists the 10 countries that received the highest "equality" scores from the WEF. Every Scandinavian country makes the top 10, and the top 4 are, in order, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Denmark is a slight laggard at No. 8.

That is consistent with the common stereotype of "a female Paradise on earth," as Alison Wolf puts it in her new book, "The XX Factor: How the Rise of Working Women Has Created a Far Less Equal World." Wolf observes that "Scandinavians are seen by the world, and they see themselves, as flagbearers for sexual equality. They are peaceful, egalitarian and economically successful; and they pioneered social programs designed to guarantee opportunities for women."

But there's trouble in paradise. One measure the WEF study doesn't use to gauge equality is occupational "gender segregation"--the degree to which men work in "male jobs" and women in "female" ones. Guess what? "The highest levels of gender segregation anywhere in the developed world are found in the labor markets of egalitarian welfare-state Scandinavia," Wolf reports. "The International Labor Organization . . . has calculated that if you wanted to make all occupations 'gender neutral,' about a third of all Scandinavian workers would have to move to completely different occupations,."

As Wolf explains, that inequality is a consequence of Scandinavia's commitment to equality. Nordic women are well-represented in the kind of high-status professional jobs on which feminists tend to focus their attention. That is in part because the welfare state eases the temporal burdens of motherhood by providing extensive day-care services. Day-care workers are mostly female. And low-status traditionally male occupations have remained so; there aren't a lot of female truck drivers in Iceland or Sweden.

So the Scandinavians have promoted equality in the elite workforce by diminishing it among nonelite workers. That doesn't seem particularly problematic: If women don't want to be truck drivers and men don't want to be child-care workers, why should anyone mind?

But who gets hurt in this arrangement? For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that it's beneficial for high-status professional women, and that, while it may come at the expense of their high-status male counterparts, that cost is justified as the advantage they long enjoyed was not. The low-status male worker--the truck driver--is not obviously affected.

But think about the low-status female worker--the day-care employee. In a more traditional society, she would work in her own home, caring for her own children. In our brave new world, a government committed to equality pushes her to take a job caring for other women's children. Is she really better off now than she would be then? True, she gets a paycheck now--but that also means that the government takes a bite out of her earnings. As Lionel Tiger notes in "The Decline of Males: The First Look at the Unexpected New World for Men and Woman," unpaid domestic "women's work" is one of the great tax shelters of all time.

So the list of "best countries for women" doesn't actually show that Iceland is better than America. Rather, it demonstrates that the pursuit of "total gender equality" is a game of Whac-A-Mole in which boars get Whacked but sows do too.

Forever Young

DailyKos proprietor Markos Moulitsas offers an especially addled bit of political analysis:

Regular readers are aware of my mantra: if our people [Democrats] turn out, we win. That is a corollary of the fact that Democrats dominate the nation's fastest growing demographics: Latinos, Asians, African Americans, single women and young people (which heavily overlaps those other groups). Republicans dominate old people, and that's never a growth demographic.

Wait, old people are never a growth demographic? Maybe Markos Moulitsas got young, but nobody else ever did. In an era of declining fertility and lengthening lifespans, old people are one of the few growth demographics. The baby boomers haven't been babies in ages, but they still have some booming in them.

The Buck Stops Ware?

"Obama 'Unaware on Investments"--headline, Albany (Ga.) Herald, March 8, 2007

"Obama 'Unaware of Illegal Aunt' "--headline, BBC website, Nov. 1, 2008

"Obama Unaware of Tea Party Protests"--headline, Examiner.com, April 15, 2009

"Obama Unaware of Backroom Deal, White House Says"--headline, Dallas Morning News website, June 4, 2010

"Blago Judge: Obama Unaware of Seat Exchange Bid"--headline, Associated Press, May 16, 2011

"Sebelius: Obama Unaware of ACA Website Glitches Before Launch"--headline, CaliforniaHealthline.org, Oct. 23, 2013

"Obama Reportedly Unaware NSA Spied on 35 World Leaders"--headline, ABCNews.com, Oct. 28

No True Scotsman

"Leaders of clowns gathered for a convention in Mexico City said they are saddened that a killer disguised himself as a clown to kill a drug lord last week - and they insisted no true member of their profession would have committed the crime."--Sydney Morning Herald, Oct. 25

Fox Butterfield, Is That You?

"Medicaid Enrollment Surging Despite Obamacare Problems"--headline, Newsmax.com, Oct. 28

"Jim Sexton, the mayor of Evergreen Park [Ill.], contracted West Nile and was hospitalized for six weeks, although four entities spend money to combat the disease in his village alone."--Tim Jones and John McCormick, Bloomberg, Oct. 28

Metaphor Alert

"Euro-area jobless numbers this week may lay bare a fault line scarring the region's recovery as evidence of Germany's employment muscle contrasts with the political quagmire destroying work in Italy."--Stefan Riecher and Lorenzo Totaro, Bloomberg, Oct. 28

We Blame George W. Bush

"Botched Launch of Health Site Blamed on Poor Coordination"--headline, WSJ.com, Oct. 25

We Blame Global Warming

"Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest in 45 Years, Experts Say"--headline, InsuranceJournal.com, Oct. 25

There Goes the Neighborhood

"All the Wrong People Are Getting Obamacare"--headline, Bloomberg, Oct. 25

That's Like Rooting Against the Jaguars

"Obama: GOP 'Rooting' for ObamaCare Failure"--headline, TheHill.com, Oct. 26

There Is a Silver Lining

"Here's How Obamacare Makes Life Hell for College Profs"--headline, DailyCaller.com, Oct. 27

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead

"Republican Party Continues To Struggle One Year After Mitt Romney Loss"--headline, Puffington Host, Oct. 28

They're Both Right

"John McCain Says That His Daughter Can Be a 'Giant Pain in the A**' but Meghan Laughs It Off Saying It Runs in the Family"--headline, Daily Mail (London), Oct. 25

It's a Cookbook

"Doctor Says NJ Gov. Chris Christie 'Fit to Serve'"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 25

"If You Want Your Partner to Trust You, Make Them [sic] an Omelette: Compound Found in Eggs Credited With Increasing Feelings of Trust"--headline, Daily Mail (London), Oct. 25

Roll Over, Orwell

"Venezuela Creates Happiness Ministry"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 26

You Call That Fair and Balanced?

"Future of the Monarchy Rocked as Fox Kills Tower of London's 'Guardian' Ravens"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 26

Wanted: Dead

"FBI Offers Reward for Shooting Suspect"--headline, Daily Times (Farmington, N.M.), Oct. 26

Math Is Hard

"Redskins Can't Comprehend 45-21 Blowout by Broncos"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 28

Questions Nobody Is Asking

"Key Question in Budget Battle: Obama's Flexibility"--headline, Politico.com, Oct. 27

"But What if Obamacare Works?"--headline, New York Times, Oct. 27

Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking

"Why So Few Asians Are College Presidents"--headline, Chronicle of Higher Education website, Oct. 28

"Jindal: 'I Don't Know' About 2016"--headline, Politico.com, Oct. 27

Look Out Below!

"McDonald's Drops Heinz Ketchup"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 26

It's Always in the Last Place You Look

"Sebelius Finds a Silver Lining in Obamacare 'Data Hub' "--headline, Reuters, Oct. 26

News of the Tautological

"Winter Could Bring Major Snowfall"--headline, WTOP-FM website (Washington), Oct. 25

Breaking News From 1995

"Sharpton Threatens Store Boycott Over Profile Suit"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 26

News You Can Use

"COLUMN: Why Raising Good Kids Is a Waste of Time"--headline, Shelby (N.C.) Star, Oct. 28

Bottom Story of the Day

"Bill de Blasio for Mayor"--headline, New York Times, Oct. 27

Nix on ObamaCare

You'll never believe whom Robert Reich, the fabulist and former labor secretary, blames for the ObamaCare debacle. No, not even George W. Bush:

In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today's Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon's plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree. . . .

So why are today's Republicans so upset with an Act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it's the signature achievement of the Obama administration.

There's a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public.

We hadn't thought of this before, but could Reich be right? Jim DeMint once said ObamaCare would be Obama's Waterloo. Could it be Obama's Watergate instead?

Follow @jamestaranto on Twitter.

Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.

Subscribe to the Best of the Web Today email with one click.

Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Irene DeBlasio, T. Young, Greg Lindenberg, Michael Segal, Rod Pennington, Samuel Moeller, Dave Ceely, Bryan Fischer, David Hauck, Demian McLean, Craig Guiffre, Eric Jensen, Ethel Fenig, Michele Schiesser, David Thompson, Miguel Rakiewicz, Brian Warner, John Williamson, Naomi Riley, E.F. Forshaw, John Trickett, Mordecai Bobrowsky, Chris Papouras and Dennis Nichols. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)