Posted on 08/18/2016 12:32:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
My, my, there those feminists go, complaining again. This time the whining concerns supposedly “sexist” Olympics coverage. Their problem?
Many journalists are, we’re told, using different language when talking about female athletes than when speaking of male ones. Oh, the humanity!
There’s the guy who credited a female swimmer’s husband/coach for her success, the talk about a six-foot-three-inch South Korean woman volley ball player’s difficulty finding a boyfriend, and a reporter who called an equestrian rider “blondie.” Putting aside the female teacher who once called me blondie when I was 13, let’s have a reality check. Do you really think sports commentators don’t look for storylines, often infused with frivolity, relating to male athletes? And insofar as the treatment is different, so what? As even über-liberal Bill Maher once observed (I’m paraphrasing), “We have two standards because there are two sexes.” But speaking of standards and differences, let’s get to a quintessential feminist complaint in a recent (very) Lost Angeles Times piece about “sexist Olympics coverage.”
Citing a Cambridge University Press study, writer Julie Makinen tells us, “The research, which analyzed multibillion-word databases of written and spoken English language, found that in general, men are referenced twice as often as women, but when the topic is sports, the ratio is about 3 to 1.” Male athletes earn more money as well, which also irks the feminists.
Of course, this is much like complaining about how heavyweight boxers get more press than lightweights or, speaking of lightweights, like kvetching about Barack Obama getting more exposure than a state legislator from Lakeview. Has Makinen ever heard of “market forces”?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It's getting there!
But why was synchronized swimming invented?
I am NOT gonna touch this!
That’s pretty accurate!
Then maybe you should since that is the core of the subject of this thread.
With that being said, and I hate repeating myself, why do you oppose college scholarships to women which was the intent of Title IX?
And stop it with your totally inane essay designed to showcase your literary ability which made no sense whatsoever when it came to the subject of this thread........
But pat yourself on the back since I'm sure you REALLY, REALLY impressed yourself with that ridiculous essay..............LOL!
Argh! My eyes! My eyes!
I need a wire-brush dipped in salt and vinegar to scrub my mind’s eye!!
To jump in again, Post 86 explains my opposition to title IX.
Any program that takes choices away based on sex is fundamentally unfair.
That’s it for me.
Cheers.
Understood......
With that being said, most of your posted articles are related to UCLA but for every college in your rather lengthy cut and past links, the vast majority of the universities in this country were unaffected, specifically the Big 10 which has maintained every men's sport in effect prior to Title IX........
Nation wide Title IX has done nothing to diminish the financing of men's collegiate sports but has provided an equal opportunity for women to take advantage of athletic scholarships for education that were once ONLY available to males...........
That's it for me too......
Cheers
The 2016 U.S. Olympic team was 53% female.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.