|
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
By Jonah Goldberg EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (including suspected terrorists like Steve Hayes), I probably shouldn’t be having this much fun with Steve’s plight. On Twitter I’ve been going on about my SteveHayesenfreude — the taking of undue pleasure at his misfortune. Hayes is a great guy, a real talent, and a good friend. But, how shall I put this? Bahaahahahahahahaha! I mean, the guy has been doing all of this intrepid reporting about the terrorist threat for more than a dozen years. And what does he have to show for it? Every time he wants to fly, some TSA agent is going to ask him to turn his head and cough and give new meaning to the phrase “packer fan.” It’s just so ridiculous. Unless, that is, there’s some truth to it. Imagine the scandal. If Hayes turned out to be deep, deep, deep, deep cover al-Qaeda, even Pamela Geller would be like, “Whoa, I didn’t see that coming.” Dick Cheney’s Secret Service detail would have to commit seppuku en masse and Bill Kristol would finally declare he was caught unaware of something: “I was shocked. Well, not shocked. I sort of suspected. Well not suspected. I knew. Yeah, I knew.” And, perhaps best of all, when coupled with the revelation that George F. Will is actually a sleeper agent for a radical Marxist splinter faction of Up With People! (equally plausible), I could finally get some more panel time on Special Report. WOMEN & WAR Earlier this week I wrote a column on the objectively idiotic notion that we are in the midst of a war on women. An excerpt: Sure, women still face challenges. But the system feminists have constructed cannot long survive an outbreak of confidence in the permanence of women’s progress. The last thing the generals need is for the troops to find out that the “war on women” ended a long time ago — and the women won. The response from feminists — including any number of men who clearly put too much starch in their “This is what a feminist looks like” T-shirts — has been less than adulatory. I wish I could say the criticisms surprised me. Over and over again women dismissed the very idea that there isn’t a war on women because, in the words of one, I am a “white dude.” Now anyone misfortunate enough to have wasted time better spent making replicas of Devil’s Tower out of their mashed potatoes reading left-wing academic gobbledygook knows that this response stands on a huge pile of identity-politics asininity. But, it should be noted, just because “white dude” lacks the polysyllabic panache of critical gender-studies jargon doesn’t make it any less serious. If anything, it is more serious because it is honest and decipherable. So much of what passes for academic writing these days is really a kind of guild-mentality gnosis, an impenetrable code intended to empower and elevate a priesthood (or in this case a priestesshood) as keepers of a truth the rest of us are too addlepated to grasp. (Time to recycle an old Jewish joke: Guy gives a piece of matzoh to a blind man. Blind man says, “Who writes this stuff?”) One could babble on for pages about “structures of power” and “false consciousness” and offer no greater insight or intellectual sophistication than “you’re wrong because you’re a white dude.” FIRST, KILL THE MESSENGERS Of course, it’s not even original. It’s simply a fresh coat of paint on the decrepit edifice of cultural Marxism. That vast enterprise can be summarized as little more than shooting the messenger in order to have a monopoly on the message. If the truth isn’t to your liking, all you need to do is claim that it isn’t the truth but merely a social construction deployed by the Pale Penis People to keep the rest of us down. Facts can be dismissed by attacking the motives of those presenting them. And if you are foolish enough to explain that your motives aren’t what the self-proclaimed champions of the oppressed say they are, you are guilty of false consciousness and must “check your privilege.” Maybe it’s true that pointing out that women are doing much better today according to myriad measures somehow solidifies my rank in the cult of Priapus, but I’m at a loss to figure out how. And, even if it did, even if pointing out there is no rape epidemic on college campuses earned me an extra round of martinis at the men’s club with Mr. Monopoly and the Koch brothers, I cannot for the life of me see how that makes the facts any less factual. If I slapped my wife’s name on my column instead of my own, would the facts therein suddenly be more true? (“Hey don’t use ‘slap’ and ‘wife’ in the same sentence or they’ll compare you to Ray Rice.” — The Couch) THE REVOLUTION WILL BE INTERNALIZED I didn’t set out to write a column on the war on women, I set out to make a larger point. But I couldn’t do it justice in the space required, so I carved off everything but the bit about the war on women. (How do you carve an elephant? Take a block of stone and remove everything that it isn’t an elephant.) In the column I wrote: Obviously, this isn’t all about elections. There’s a vast feminist-industrial complex that is addicted to institutionalized panic. On college campuses, feminist- and gender-studies departments depend almost entirely on a constant drumbeat of crisis-mongering to keep their increasingly irrelevant courses alive. Abortion-rights groups now use “women’s health” and “access to abortion on demand” as if they are synonymous terms. The lack of a subsidy for birth-control pills is tantamount to a federal forced-breeding program. Well, this sort of thing is hardly restricted to feminism. One doesn’t have to read Crisis and Leviathan (or, you know) to see that progressivism increasingly finds its sustenance in the cultivation of fear and the demonization of political opponents. I could write pretty much the same column about law enforcement’s supposed open season on young black men or the anti-Muslim backlashthat always seems to fall on Jews or the new elite fad of gender identity as the most important civil-rights issue of our time. Note, just as with feminists, I’m not saying that there are no legitimate problems or grievances among any of these constituencies (indeed, I’d argue that young black men face much bigger challenges and have more legitimate complaints than any Sandra Fluke or Wendy Davis acolyte). What I am saying is that the constant crisis-mongering outstrips the scope of the problem by orders of magnitude. And, more to the point, it’s deliberate. This is the great irony. When I say: “The U.S. has made enormous environmental progress.” Or: “Sexism and racism are smaller problems than at any time in American history.” Or: “Capitalism helps poor people more than socialism does.” Or: “The best way to feed a bear a marshmallow isn’t by putting your hands behind your back and holding the marshmallow between your lips.” . . . the response from the Left is that I am merely trying to protect the vested interests of The Man and His League of Extraordinary Meat-Eating Oligarchs. But, when alarmists insist the Earth will burn like an ant under a magnifying glass if we don’t ban the internal-combustion engine by this Thursday at noon, it’s merely “speaking truth to power.” I mean it’s not like anybody is making any money off global warming. It’s not like there’s any privilege that comes with being a climate activist. It’s not like big corporations would ever think to take advantage of the issue. Nor would government bureaucrats ever use climate hysteria as an excuse to expand their own power. Maybe liberals have a point about voter-ID laws — I don’t think they do — but even if I’m wrong, the relentless comparisons to Jim Crow and chants of “We won’t go back” are not merely incredibly dumb, they amount to a kind of insidious and willful slander against the society we live in and the progress we’ve made. Think about it: At least 70 percent of Americans support voter-ID laws, including a majority of blacks and Democrats. But in elite circles the push for voter-ID laws is proof of racism run amok. Think about that. When elites, in and out of the press, talk about voter-ID laws as troubling evidence of widespread racism, they are saying that the American people are racists. And yet they pose as if they are speaking for “real” America. This rhetoric and the reasoning behind it gives bureaucrats in Washington license to aggrandize — or hold onto — as much power as possible. (Don’t get me started on President Obama’s spiel yesterday about how the Civil Rights Division is the “conscience of the Justice Department.”) And because the mainstream media are on the same page, they celebrate expansions of government power for the “right reason.” I understand that none of this amounts to a particularly new insight. But it’s really worth pondering because I don’t think people see the problem in its totality. The vast complex of New Class intellectuals and activists, rent-seeking “capitalists,” liberal politicians, and the apolitical-in-name-only bureaucrats who work for them actually hold remarkably radical views better suited for the crowds marching in the streets. But they have brilliantly figured out a way to translate their radicalism into a license to boost their own prestige, power, and — quite often — material prosperity. Talk about renewables: They stoke the fires of hysteria and panic and use the heat to propel them into positions of ever more power and advantage. America can never simply be a healthy country in their eyes, because healthy countries don’t need to follow doctors’ orders. And they are the self-appointed doctors.
0 Comments
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
BY Camille Paglia Young women today do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature The disappearance of University of Virginia sophomore Hannah Graham two weeks ago is the latest in a long series of girls-gone-missing cases that often end tragically. A 32-year-old, 270-pound former football player who fled to Texas has been returned to Virginia and charged with “abduction with intent to defile.” At this date, Hannah’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown. Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides. Colleges should stick to academics and stop their infantilizing supervision of students’ dating lives, an authoritarian intrusion that borders on violation of civil liberties. Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees. Too many young middleclass women, raised far from the urban streets, seem to expect adult life to be an extension of their comfortable, overprotected homes. But the world remains a wilderness. The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense. Current educational codes, tracking liberal-Left, are perpetuating illusions about sex and gender. The basic Leftist premise, descending from Marxism, is that all problems in human life stem from an unjust society and that corrections and fine-tunings of that social mechanism will eventually bring utopia. Progressives have unquestioned faith in the perfectibility of mankind. The horrors and atrocities of history have been edited out of primary and secondary education except where they can be blamed on racism, sexism, and imperialism — toxins embedded in oppressive outside structures that must be smashed and remade. But the real problem resides in human nature, which religion as well as great art sees as eternally torn by a war between the forces of darkness and light. Liberalism lacks a profound sense of evil — but so does conservatism these days, when evil is facilely projected onto a foreign host of rising political forces united only in their rejection of Western values. Nothing is more simplistic than the now rote use by politicians and pundits of the cartoonish label “bad guys” for jihadists, as if American foreign policy is a slapdash script for a cowboy movie. The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men. But extreme sex crimes like rape-murder emanate from a primitive level that even practical psychology no longer has a language for. Psychopathology, as in Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s grisly Psychopathia Sexualis (1886), was a central field in early psychoanalysis. But today’s therapy has morphed into happy talk, attitude adjustments, and pharmaceutical shortcuts. There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against. It is well-established that the visual faculties play a bigger role in male sexuality, which accounts for the greater male interest in pornography. The sexual stalker, who is often an alienated loser consumed with his own failures, is motivated by an atavistic hunting reflex. He is called a predator precisely because he turns his victims into prey. Sex crime springs from fantasy, hallucination, delusion, and obsession. A random young woman becomes the scapegoat for a regressive rage against female sexual power: “You made me do this.” Academic clichés about the “commodification” of women under capitalism make little sense here: It is women’s superior biological status as magical life-creator that is profaned and annihilated by the barbarism of sex crime. Misled by the naive optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature. Paglia is the author of Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art From Egypt to Star Wars. ORIGINAL ARTICLE
BY JOE PINSKER NPR reporter Shereen Marisol Meraji recently dropped in on a professional-etiquette class for teens to see what they made of traditional chivalry. “I can open my own door. I don’t see the point,” 18-year-old Chiamaka Njoku told her. “Most of these doors are automatic anyway.” But the young woman took a less progressive stance on the topic of money: “If a man wants to pay for the whole meal, I would not stop him,” she said. Why, as other sexist institutions gradually dissolve, does this one stubbornly hang on? A survey released yesterday morning found that about 77 percent of people in straight relationships believe men should pay the bill on a first date. The survey, put together by the financial website NerdWallet, polled roughly 1,000 people who had been dating their partners for six months or more. The company’s survey indicates that, in the early stages of courting, the pressure to pay falls primarily on men, but this imbalance hardly dissolves as the relationship progresses. Fifty-six percent of men foot the bill in full once they’re in an established relationship, and, even further down the line, 36 percent of men pay all of household bills, versus 14 percent of women. There’s not much in the way of historical data on the question of who pays for dates, but the findings of a 1985 poll suggest that very little has changed in the past 30 years. “Rape was rated as more justifiable when the man paid all the dating expenses rather than splitting the costs with the woman,” one study found.But in the past five decades, more and more women have become breadwinners, at least in the U.S. Between 1960 and 2011, the proportion of two-parent U.S. households in which the mother earned all or most of the income roughly quadrupled. And in 1977, 34 percent of General Social Survey respondents rejected the idea that men should work and women should stay at home, but this figure was 64 percent in 2010. Some researchers have speculated about why, even in light of these big-picture changes, the expectation to pay for dates falls to men. “As social roles start to change, people often embrace the changes that make their lives easier, but resist the changes that make their lives more difficult,” David Frederick, a professor of psychology at Chapman University,told The Huffington Post last summer. “Who pays for dates … is one arena where women may be resisting gender changes more than men,” he suggested. Last year, Frederick co-authored a study larger than NerdWallet’s—one that reached about 17,000 people—which also found that men tend to pay for dates. In the study, he and his co-authors called paying for dates “a rare case” in which women are incentivized not to fight old-school gender dynamics. This same logic might explain why men who are okay stepping down as breadwinners aren’t as eager to step up to the demands of parenting and homemaking. (The scope of Frederick’s study was wider than NerdWallet’s too, and, interestingly, 39 percent of its female respondents admitted that they hoped men would reject their offers to help pay.) Who’s expected to pay for a date may seem trivial—some would even argue that covering the tab is a form of respecting women—but there’s reason to believe that this minor, “benevolent” form of sexism can lead to a fraught question of what the man is then owed. A 1985 study published in Psychology of Women Quarterly presented subjects with a variety of fictional dating scenarios—mixing up who invited whom, who paid, and the venue—and asked them to evaluate the acceptability of the sexual encounter that followed. Disturbingly, they found that money contorted men’s opinions of sexual consent. “Rape was rated as more justifiable,” the authors wrote, “when the man paid all the dating expenses rather than splitting the costs with the woman.” Culturally speaking, 1985 may seem distant, but the study's conclusion apparently hasn’t become any less relevant (or urgent): A more recent study, from 2010, found that men were more likely than women to think that sex should be expected when a man pays for an expensive date. Through all these disconcerting findings, David Frederick still saw one data point that inspired optimism. Almost half of the men surveyed in the study he co-authored said that they would break up with a woman if she never offered to help pay the bill on a date. “In this single telling finding about dating and paying interactions, we see evidence of a sea change,” he and fellow authors wrote. Ultimately, though, financial chivalry is in need of an even larger revision, seeing as it overlooks the possibility of gay relationships. Steven Petrow, who writes an LGBT advice column for The Washington Post, talked to NPR about this. “In the gay community, you didn’t have that tradition to fall back on,” he said, and he went on to suggest that straight couples would do well to understand how two men or two women negotiate a financial situation without gendered expectations. His rule? "You invite, you pay." Petrow’s clear-minded approach applies to holding the door, too: “The one who gets to the door first, please open the door for yourself and the person who’s behind you,” he advised flatly. If only it were that simple. ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Christina Hoff Sommers If we're genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women: MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property. FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz,repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today. Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in TheAtlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change. MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States. FACTS: This sensational claim is a favorite of politicians, celebrities and journalists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore turned it into a cause célèbre. Both conservatives and liberal reformers deploy it. Former President Jimmy Carter recently said that the sexual enslavement of girls in the U.S. today is worse than American slavery in the 19th century. The source for the figure is a 2001 report on child sexual exploitation by University of Pennsylvania sociologists Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner. But their 100,000–300,000 estimate referred to children at risk for exploitation—not actual victims. When three reporters from the Village Voice questioned Estes on the number of children who are abducted and pressed into sexual slavery each year, he replied, “We’re talking about a few hundred people.” And this number is likely to include a lot of boys: According to a 2008 censusof underage prostitutes in New York City, nearly half turned out to be male. A few hundred children is still a few hundred too many, but they will not be helped by thousand-fold inflation of their numbers. MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%–35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence. FACTS: This claim has appeared in countless fact sheets, books and articles—for example, in the leading textbook on family violence,Domestic Violence Law, and in the Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. The Penguin Atlas uses the emergency room figure to justify placing the U.S. on par with Uganda and Haiti for intimate violence. What is the provenance? The Atlas provides no primary source, but the editor of Domestic Violence Law cites a 1997 Justice Departmentstudy, as well as a 2009 post on the Centers for Disease Control website. But the Justice Department and the CDC are not referring to the 40 million women who annually visit emergency rooms, but to women, numbering about 550,000 annually, who come to emergency rooms “for violence-related injuries.” Of these, approximately 37% were attacked by intimates. So, it’s not the case that 22%-35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for domestic violence. The correct figure is less than half of 1%. MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted. FACTS: This incendiary figure is everywhere in the media today. Journalists, senators and even President Obama cite it routinely. Can it be true that the American college campus is one of the most dangerous places on earth for women? The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses: “The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.” Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated. Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But these studies suffer from some or all of the same flaws. Campus sexual assault is a serious problem and will not be solved by statistical hijinks. MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work. FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot. Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies. My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth. Christina Hoff Sommers, a former philosophy professor, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books, including Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys, and is the host of a weekly video blog, The Factual Feminist. Follow her @CHSommers. Birth and Death:
For every 100 girls that are conceived 115 boys are conceived. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3840.html For every 100 girl babies born there are 105 boy babies born. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/vitstat.pdf For every 100 girl babies who die in the first 27 days of life 125 boy babies die. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf For every 100 girl babies who die after the first 27 days but in the first year of life 130 boy babies die. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf For every 100 girls ages 1 to 4 years who die 127 boys die. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf For every 100 girls ages 5 to 14 years who die 140 boys die. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf For every 100 girls and women ages 15 to 24 years who die 292 boys and men die. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf K-12 Education: For every 100 girls enrolled in nursery school there are 98 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 girls enrolled in kindergarten there are 107 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 girls who repeat kindergarten 194 boys repeat kindergarten. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006064.pdf For every 100 girls whose entry into kindergarten is delayed 150 boys are delayed. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006064.pdf For every 100 girls enrolled in elementary grades there are 105 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 fourth grade girls who do one or more hours of homework each day 92 boys do the same. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_155.asp For every 100 fourth grade girls who watch television four or more hours per day 123 boys do. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_155.asp For every 100 girls ages 9 to 11 years enrolled below modal grade there are 130 boys enrolled below modal grade.http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_155.asp For every 100 girls ages 12 to 14 years enrolled below modal grade there are 120 boys enrolled below modal grade.http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_155.asp For every 100 girls ages 15 to 17 years enrolled below modal grade there are 130 boys enrolled below modal grade. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/TableA-3.xls For every 100 girls enrolled in ninth grade there are 107 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 girls enrolled in tenth grade there are 111 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xlsTomMortenson Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY: For every 100 tenth grade girls who watch television 5 or more hours per day on weekdays 110 tenth grade boys watch television 5 or more hours per day on weekdays. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who read for pleasure one or more hours per day 81 boys read for pleasure one or more hours per day. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who play video or computer games one or more hours per day 322 boys play video or computer games one or more hours per day. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who perform community service at least once a week 68 boys do the same. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who play non-school sports 169 boys play non-school sports. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who take music, art or language class 52 boys take music, art or language class. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who use a personal computer at home at least once a week 99 boys use a personal computer at home. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who work on hobbies at least once a week 104 tenth grade boys work on hobbies.http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who do things with friends at least once a week 77 boys do things with friends. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 tenth grade girls who take sports lesions at least once a week 115 boys take sports lesson. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 girls enrolled in eleventh grade there are 100 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 girls enrolled in twelfth grade there are 100 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 twelfth grade girls who participate in academic clubs 83 boys participate. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who participate in cheerleading or drill team 15 boys participate. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who participate in newspaper or yearbook 60 boys participate. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who participate in music, drama or debate 70 boys participate http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who participate in vocational clubs 71 boys participate. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_138.asp For every 100 high school girls who felt too unsafe to go to school 88 boys felt the same way. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who carried a weapon on school property 276 boys carried a weapon. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property 175 boys were threatened or injured. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who engaged in a physical fight on school property 226 boys got into a fight. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who had property stolen or deliberately damaged on school property 128 boys had the same experience. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who smoked cigarettes on school property 153 boys smoked. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.aspTom Mortenson Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY: For every 100 twelfth grade girls who used smokeless tobacco on school property 844 boys did this. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who used alcohol on school property 148 boys used alcohol. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who used marijuana on school property 225 boys did. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 twelfth grade girls who offered, sold or were given an illegal drug on school property 134 boys did the same. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_171.asp For every 100 girls enrolled in high school there are 97 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 girls enrolled in gifted and talented programs in public elementary and secondary schools there are 95 boys enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab02-01.xls For every 100 girls who graduate from high school 96 boys graduate. (NCES, unpublished tabulation.) For every 100 girls suspended from public elementary and secondary schools 215 boys are suspended. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_169.asp For every 100 girls expelled from public elementary and secondary schools 297 boys are expelled. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_169.asp For every 100 girls in grades 10 to 12 that drop out of high school 103 boys drop out of high school. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_169.asp Special Education: For every 100 girls diagnosed with a special education disability 217 boys are diagnosed with a special education disability. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with a learning disability 276 boys are diagnosed with a learning disability. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with emotional disturbance 324 boys are diagnosed with emotional disturbance.http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with a speech impairment 147 boys are similarly diagnosed. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with mental retardation 138 boys are diagnosed as mentally retarded. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with visual impairment 125 boys are visually impaired. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with hearing impairment 108 boys are diagnosed as hearing impaired. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls diagnosed with deafness 120 boys have deafness. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls with orthopedic impairment 118 boys have orthopedic impairment. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls with other health impairment 127 boys have other health impairment. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls with multiple disabilities 189 boys have multiple disabilities. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm For every 100 girls that are deaf/blind 98 boys are deaf/blind. http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm Disabilities: For every 100 girls less than 15 years old with a severe disability 191 boys have a severe disability. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disab05/ds05t1.xlsTomMortenson Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY: For every 100 girls less than 15 years old with a disability and needs assistance 195 boys have a disability and need assistance. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disab05/ds05t1.xls For every 100 girls less than 3 years old with a developmental delay 165 boys have a developmental delay. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls less than 3 years old with difficulty moving arms or legs 96 boys have difficulty moving arms or legs. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls less than 3 years old with no disabilities104 boys have no disabilities. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 3 to 5 years old with a developmental delay 154 boys are developmentally delayed. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 3 to 5 years old with difficulty walking, running or playing 230 boys the same age have difficulty walking, running or playing. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 3 to 5 years with no disability 103 boys have no disability. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with a severe disability 160 boys have a severe disability. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with a not severe disability 185 boys have a not severe disability. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with no disability 99 boys have no disability. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old who have difficulty doing regular schoolwork 176 boys have difficulty doing regular schoolwork. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old who have difficulty getting along with others 183 boys have difficulty getting along with others. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with a learning disability 160 boys have a learning disability. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with mental retardation 302 boys have mental retardation. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with other developmental disability 212 boys have other developmental disability. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with other developmental condition 129 boys have other developmental condition. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with a developmental disability or condition 142 boys have a developmental disability or condition. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old that use a wheelchair or electric scooter 235 boys use a wheelchair or electric scooter. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls ages 6 to 14 years that uses a cane/crutches/walker 156 boys used a cane/crutches/walker. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old that had difficulty seeing words/letters 103 boys had difficulty seeing words/letters. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with difficulty hearing conversation 149 boys had difficulty hearing conversation. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with speech difficulty 214 boys had speech difficulty. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdf For every 100 girls 6 to 14 years old with difficulty walking or running 126 boys had difficulty walking or running. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p70-107.pdfTomMortenson Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY: For every 100 girls and women ages 15 to 24 years with a severe disability 113 boys and men of the same age range have a severe disability. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disab05/ds05t1.xls For every 100 girls and women ages 15 to 24 years with a disability and need assistance 110 boys and men ages 15 to 24 years have a disability and need assistance. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disab05/ds05t1.xls Higher Education: For every 100 women enrolled in college there are 78 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women enrolled in the first year of college there are 84 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women enrolled in the second year of college there are 78 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women enrolled in the third year of college there are 77 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women enrolled in the fourth year of college there are 81 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women enrolled in the fifth year of college there are 65 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women enrolled in the sixth year or more of college there are 70 men enrolled. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/cps2009/tab01-01.xls For every 100 women living in college dormitories there are 87 men living in college dorms. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html For every 100 American women who earn an associate’s degree from college 61 American men earn the same degree. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_281.asp For every 100 American women who earn a bachelor’s degree from college 75 American men earn a bachelor’s degree. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_286.asp For every 100 American women who earn a master’s degree from college 66 American men earn the same degree.http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_286.asp For every 100 American women who earn a first-professional degree 104 American men earn a first-professional degree. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_291.asp For every 100 American women who earn a doctor’s degree from college 91 American men earn the same degree.http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_291.asp Educational Attainment: For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who are at least a high school graduate 140 men are at least high school graduates. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xls For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who have at least some college but no degree 101 men have at least some college but no degree. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xls For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who have at least an associate’s degree from college 86 men have at least an associate’s degree from college. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xls For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who have at least a bachelor’s degree 83 men have at least a bachelor’s degree. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xlsTomMortenson Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY: For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who have at least a master’s degree 69 men have at least a master’s degree. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xls For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who have at least a professional degree 84 men have at least a professional degree. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xls For every 100 women ages 25 to 29 years who have a doctorate degree 80 men have a doctorate degree. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/Table1-01.xls Other Indicators: For every 100 females ages 15 to 19 that commit suicide 549 males in the same range kill themselves. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2002.pdf For every 100 females ages 20 to 24 that commit suicide 624 males of the same age kill themselves. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2002.pdf For every 100 girls ages 15 to 17 in correctional facilities there are 837 boys behind bars. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html For every 100 women ages 18 to 21 in correctional facilities there are 1430 men behind bars. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html For every 100 women ages 22 to 24 in correctional facilities there are 1448 men in correctional facilities. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html For every 100 women living in military quarters there are 642 men living in military quarters. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html For every 100 women ages 18 to 24 years living in emergency and transitional shelters there are 86 men living in similar shelters. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html For every 100 women ages 18 to 24 years living in-group homes there are 166 men of the same age living in-group homes. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t26.html |
ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed
|
|
|
|
|
COPYRIGHT© 1997-2020
REVOLUTION INC.
REVOLUTION INC.