More NYTimes misandry with Title IX

	posted by Adam on Saturday March 22, @02:10PM from the Education dept.
	mcc99 writes " Speaks for itself Note the editorial notes that 56% of higher ed students are female, but only 42% of college athletes are female. It fails to even point out the fact, by its own admission, that there are 6% more female students in higher ed than male. And of course the matter of interest in the sports, from students or spectators, goes unmentioned as factors for *anything*. But what do we expect of the Times these days? Seeing more then one side of a debate? Not anymore!"

<  Abused Men Tell Their Stories on Sacks' New Radio | Prison for Streakers - Only if You are Male  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

viciously anti-male (Score:0) by Anonymous User on Saturday March 22, @02:51PM EST (#1) I wouldn't believe their figure that 56% of college students are women. I've seen a 59% figure. The NYT doesn't seem to care that men are educationally disadvantaged, die sooner, and make up most of the population of persons in jail. Their central concern is about the sex of members at an exclusive golf club. No question, the NYT is viciously anti-male.

Scenes we'd like to see..... (Score:1) by incredibletulkas on Monday March 24, @01:07PM EST (#2) (User #901 Info) "Note the editorial notes that 56% of higher ed students are female, but only 42% of college athletes are female." And let's not forget the ratio of female PROFESSIONAL athletes: I'm not sure what it is, but I have a hunch that it's nowhere NEAR 42%! And that's only in terms of participation- in terms of overall profits, I doubt it's even one-tenth that ratio. And yet NO ONE claims discrimination here, because it's the free market. Howver, college sports are notoriously promoted, despite a rather questionable relationship to education, simply due to the profits they rake in for the school. However, this applies almost exclusively to MALE sports teams, while return on womens' sports bring only a fraction of that-- if they turn any profit at all, and in fact are often a liability, offered at the school's expense as a student benefit. The notion that women should be entitled to sports teams that don't pay their way, when this is the main reason they exist at all, is simply a demand for special treatment. Also at work here is the cockamamie "quota" system, which simply expects participation to mirror population makeup, and automatically attributes any disparity to foul play, while ignoring the possiblity of any other variables such as interest. Finally, the fact that the college female population is 6-8% HIGHER than in the average population, while the athletic membership is 6-8% LOWER, never strikes these math-geniuses as anything significant in terms of simply balancing the disparity with the general population. In fact, I just can't understand why they're pitching a fit over a higher male-female ratio in such a meaningless subject as atletic participation, and yet don't bat an eyelash with regard to the whole freaking enchilada of lower FEMALE-MALE ratio in the main pivotal issue regarding college: ENROLLMENT. Gee, why the selective outrage, if not feminist bias? This hypocrisy is beneath contempt.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]