NYT quotes 3.4 times as many men as women on A1

Declension One we learn to sing -a, -ae, -ae, -am, -a
Plurals too have got to ring -ae, -arum, -is, -as, -is.
Declension Two makes quite a sound -us, -i, -o, -um, -o
Plurals help to bring it round -i, -orum, -is, -os, -is.

 

Slate wouldn't have published the data if it didn't mean to cast aspersions upon the NYT. Of course there are logical reasons for the disparity.

 

So what?

It's a column by a woman who writes about women's issues. She's not a staff member, and her opinion doesn't necessarily reflect Slate's.

It was written in reaction to the Times article about college women who HAVE SEX! The article got a ton of negative reaction all across the blogosphere and twitterverse.

She acknowledges the reasons for the disparity, but still uses the "data" to buttress her argument that women are not taken seriously by the Times, and that greater diversity amongst its staff might help to correct that.

It's not a bad as arguing that marijuana is not a gateway drug, but like some people, the author had a point she wanted to make, and did a poor job of identifying research that would prove her point.

Maybe the Times is sexist. Maybe their staff should be more diverse.

But this silly little study, looking at two months worth of Times front pages, does nothing to prove her thesis.

 

Exactly.

 

Tangentially, this article aside, the commentary on Slate is so far superior to the commentary in the New York Times that it's not even close.

If the New York Times wanted to improve its op-ed page by leaps and bounds in one fell swoop, it would fire all of its columnists - Gail Collins, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow, Thomas Friedman, David Brooks twice if they could and Maureen Dowd three times - and replace them with Slaters like William Saletan, Matthew Yglesias, David Plotz, John Dickerson, Emily Bazelon, etc. I understand that Slate writers get more room to write, but that's not all that's separating them. They are simply better. Better wordsmiths. Better thinkers. More thoughtful. More informed. More passionate.

 

You should post some of their articles that don't suck, then. The data presented here does not support your premise.

Slate should rename itself "Contrarian ... Just Because."

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/liz_cheney_challenging_mike_enzi_the_gop_s_senate_primary_fight_in_wyoming.html?wpisrc=flyouts

 

I love it when you call me dumb. I really do. You make me want to take one of my three diplomas off the wall or hand back my graduate hours at VCU and UVA.

You think, as a troll, it pisses me off. If someone I respected said, it might mean something. But guess what?

All these hours you spend trolling you could be taking some online business courses. Just saying...

 

There are no credentials here.

Your credentials are your posts.

 

I read this statement that you think I believe the NY Times is sexist. I don't. Not from this article.

 

So the site is a game? Do we score points?

 

You should watch The Bridge on FX. There is a character on it I think you could relate to. Just getting that from your posts.