Iron Shrink (Shawn Smith) emailed me this story from Elle that has been circulating. Titled “Saving for a Daughter but Not a Son: This Father Is Starting a Fund to Combat the Wage Gap,” it tells of a “father” (I use that term loosely here) who has a “brilliant” plan:

As Paul Ford’s twins grew, he couldn’t stand the fact that his daughter would always lag behind his son financially. Then he hatched a brilliant plan…. Women are caregivers across the globe. Caring for children, or for sick parents, keeps them from paid employment. Around a quarter of American women quit jobs for family reasons; 10 percent of men do. It adds up: A woman on average will make $434,000 less than a man over her career, according to a Center for American Progress study. The gap is much greater if you compare men and women who went to college—$713,000. Meaning if we raise our daughter as the “equal” of our son, we’ll still have come up 21.7 percent short. How do we give Ivy the same opportunities as Abe? Do we praise her 21.7 percent more? Hug her 21.7 percent harder? I know that prognostication is dicey, and that my children’s world will be very different from our own. Robots will build more screens; computers will be less devices and more ambient omnipresences. The people who succeed will be those who can work with huge volumes of symbolic information, who can move data around in meaningful ways. The problem is, the things that we’re told will be most valuable in the future are, today, controlled by men. … And then I realized, Maybe I can buy my way out of this one… I’m thinking I’ll call it the JTG fund, for Jump the Gap. I’m working with a lawyer to organize it. Right now I’m not sure how often I can afford to do this, but at least I’ll take my fee for this article—several thousand dollars—and put it in a separate account. I have no idea how to turn that into a few million dollars, but I do know that putting money in the bank is better than not doing it. So once I’m paid, this thing becomes real.

Okay, jackass, I can tell you what will become real if you hatch such a sexist distorted plan that favors your daughter over your son: your daughter will probably suffer for it and so will society. Your son, with good reason, may come to resent you and your little brilliant plan. But hey, you are brilliant so who cares, right?

This Uncle Tim has decided that his son will have an advantage in life and seeks to knock the success out of him early. Our society wonders why boys are unmotivated, can’t learn and sit around smoking dope. Guys like Paul Ford are helping push them into these roles and then wondering why guys have gone on strike and won’t date their daughter or treat them like crap.

Naturally, this idiot writer will never understand his own part in this downhill process. He will be too busy congratulating himself on his “brilliance.” Meanwhile, women like his daughter will have fewer men to choose from, many men (maybe even his own son) will not go to college, and he may end up with either one or both kids in the basement til 30 while he continues to support them. But hey, he had a good plan, right? Wrong.



Men and boys are not doing so well in our society and this sexist plan will simply add to the difficulties that boys already face. Like so many other out-of-touch “progressives,” this writer has made a common error called the “apex fallacy” which Bernard Chapin discussed in a 2008 interview with me:

I have conducted scores of interviews since 2003, but rarely did one alter my worldview. Yet that was precisely what occurred during my exchange with Dr. Helen Smith. Her answer to my second question led to my coming up with a new term for the fallacious way by which feminists comprehend the nature of our social structure. The phrase “Apex Fallacy” sprung to mind as it elucidates fully the inaccurate fashion by which they assess the status of women in America. The error in their thinking arises from a collective refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of male workers toil in the nether regions of our economy. These hordes of men-who make possible feminist lives of leisure-are totally invisible to the harridans who compare women, on aggregate, to the rich and famous alone. Indeed, when judging female progress, juxtaposition is only made with those males at the apex of our status hierarchy. It seems that feminists can discern none but the elite.

Paul Ford juxtaposes his son with the few men at the top and juxtaposes his daughter with women at the bottom. He has made an error of judgement like so many other Social Justice Warriors (SJW) in our society who equate all males with riches and privilege and all women with poverty and victimhood. It is too bad that our kids are paying the price for this stupidity.

More from Dr. Helen: