Re: Boys' education funds unveiled to reduce gender gap


Ben wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Viking wrote:
> >
> > > Cool. Way to go, AU.
> > > Yet I find it inconceivable that the US will ever see anything like
> > > that.
> >
> > In the US you cannot serve boys at the expense of girls or girls at the
> > expense of boys. And time will tell whether the Australian law will
> > support such as well. Here in the US
> > we have laws that prevent favoring one sex over the other unless there
> > is some form of discrimination. Clearly, there isn't.
>
> Clearly there is, Hy--disparate impact, and all that.

Only if you can show DISCRIMINATION.


***, you yourself argued that numbers alone was enough to prove
discrimination
> at the LA Times with regards to a lack of opinion columns written by> women.

That is provable discrimination tho. Where is the discrimination
against boys? Who is doing this terrible thing to boys? With the LA
times, we can cite the talented women who have applied as well as the
management who won't hire them. What can we show regarding
discrimination against boys in school. Teachers still pay more
attention to boys and boys still get more sports funding, even after
Title IX. So, what have you?


All of a sudden numbers aren't good anymore? Even when we have
> more than numbers?

Sure numbers are good, but they have to relate to some discrimination.

.

Quantcast