A columnist has proposed that there be a “counter” on national news every night that records the number of the day’s instances of sexism as determined by “the computer.”

If you are not sure what she means by, “the computer,” that’s okay – she never explains it, so I’m pretty sure she doesn’t know either.

Still, in her mind, it would be just like reporting the number of jobs gained or lost:

“A friend reminded me the other day that in our youth, there used to be a counter every evening on the news that recorded how many jobs had been gained or lost that day,” the columnist, Lucy Mangan, wrote in a piece for the Guardian titled “I’m with Helen Mirren on arms round necks — let’s try a daily sexism scorecard.”

“I feel we are in need of a similar system to bring clarity to the greatest confusion of our own age: male-female interaction,” she continued. “The need for some kind of nationally calibrated scale on which to weigh the day’s gleanings of sexist behaviour is now overdue.”

Even aside from the ideological ridiculousness of her “proposal,” it has some pretty obvious logistical problems as well. Spoiler alert: Unlike job losses, what does and does not constitute sexism is subjective and therefore much harder (read: impossible) to quantify.

#share#Her solution? When in doubt, count them all anyway!

“Run the day’s adventures in sexism – purported, alleged, disputed, undisputed –through the computer, calculating genuine outrage, perceived and actual harm done, long term, short term, adjust for media frothing, celebrity premiums and then let Huw Edwards or Fiona Bruce slide the pointer along the line to show the overall loss or gain on the Panglossometer,” she wrote.

Again, I’m not sure what this “computer” would look like or how it would work, but one thing is for sure: If any allegation of sexism were included in the same category as actual, undisputed sexism, the total number would become meaningless. An instance that someone maybe thinks is sexist and an instance of sexism are very two different things. Even if someone were to look at the counter and see something like “sexism is up 15 points today!” or whatever, he or she would have no way of knowing whether there had actually been more instances of sexism — or simply more baseless accusations of it.

#related#If Langan herself were “the computer,” it’s clear that she would consider quite a few of the baseless accusations to be indisputable instances of oppression. After all, as the title of her piece states, she totally agrees with actress Helen Mirren’s claim that a man putting his arm around his girlfriend’s shoulder is sexist because it suggests that he has “ownership” of her.

“It is a sign of ownership, undoubtedly,” she wrote. “Not like a chastity belt or scold’s bridle, or marital rape, but a mild form of that almost equally ancient art of c[***]blocking,” she wrote.

God help us.

— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review.