tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post3047601186857826562..comments2023-08-19T06:19:28.990-04:00Comments on the nytpicker: All The Men That's Fit To Print: So Far This August, NYT Has Published 76 Obituaries -- 70 Men And 6 Women.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-25405041931177198422010-11-24T13:10:24.801-05:002010-11-24T13:10:24.801-05:00Good article but I think it contains a logical gap...Good article but I think it contains a logical gap... You state:<br /><br />"That's two decades ago, long enough in the past that the supposed disparity noted by McDonald should have been even more pronounced"<br /><br />This assumption appears to put words in Mr. McDonald's mouth. He says nothing about the rate of change. He does not imply that this shift has been gradual or linear. On the contrary, he seems to state that the shift in perceptions has been generational, meaning that it would be unsurprising to see these things move as a step function.<br /><br />It would be perfectly consistent with Mr. Mcdonald's statement to suggest that the ~6:1 ratio you identify had been relatively constant for many decades previously, and is only now beginning to correct. This seems to be a fair statement.Hiram Nuttlebergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-76698853743408043912010-09-16T17:29:40.474-04:002010-09-16T17:29:40.474-04:00The New York Times charges a lot of money for thei...The New York Times charges a lot of money for their obituaries/death notices. Most families will not pay the ridiculous amount of money for the notice to run. I think it crazy to assume there is a gender bias with the paper. Get over it.Jarednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-54517821822515774722010-09-06T17:04:47.479-04:002010-09-06T17:04:47.479-04:00Wash Post for the past five years has consistently...Wash Post for the past five years has consistently had a gender ratio in its obits of one woman to every three men. They wrote about it in their obits blog, PostMortem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-39447021602838965972010-09-04T23:58:08.492-04:002010-09-04T23:58:08.492-04:00To 9:00, here's one omitted woman who would...To 9:00, here's one omitted woman who would've counted for 10: Baroness Daphne Park of Monmouth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-1077463497757388682010-09-04T21:15:48.095-04:002010-09-04T21:15:48.095-04:00I hate to read the wording in an accident report, ...I hate to read the wording in an accident report, "John Smith, his wife, and three children" were injured. I wish they would say, "Mary and John Smith and their children" were injured.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-42630963335913183422010-09-04T09:00:08.858-04:002010-09-04T09:00:08.858-04:00This posting would benefit from less math and more...This posting would benefit from less math and more EXAMPLES. Please find 10 women who died this year whose obits were notable yet excluded from the NYT. This is pretty much the basic question any good editor would ask.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-90515083674626439302010-09-02T17:37:25.608-04:002010-09-02T17:37:25.608-04:00@1:37 It's true, they might better afford the ...@1:37 It's true, they might better afford the space for intelligent men's styles if put out some obnoxious and crowd tranquilizing bits about Real men who daily tie a noose around their neck to hang as a dog leash and nightly doze off to toys racing toys in circles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-58365562508174307972010-09-02T13:37:11.371-04:002010-09-02T13:37:11.371-04:00The call for the Style section to include 50% stor...The call for the Style section to include 50% stories for men made me laugh this morning. This piece about "male cosmetics" is probably what the Style section editors think will fulfill their quota. Hah. <br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/fashion/02skin.html?ref=fashion<br /><br />How about some style stories about NASCAR or hunting or something that real men do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-56467605340875170132010-09-02T10:42:48.796-04:002010-09-02T10:42:48.796-04:00He's another of the crop whose brain function ...He's another of the crop whose brain function is overwhelmed by their dicks. The problem with rigid quotas is they discriminate against intelligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-57766033083961971952010-09-02T09:12:46.077-04:002010-09-02T09:12:46.077-04:00The last anonymous makes an interesting point. I&#...The last anonymous makes an interesting point. I'm wondering about errors. And by errors, I mean the errors that are first order. You misspell the name of a street? Okay, not good, but still, it's not the end of the world. But what about the articles (like John Burns recent pile of steaming blog bullshit about how no one could have foreseen that the Iraq War would be such a disaster) where the whole concept of the piece is in error? The sort of articles that aren't disagreements of politics or personal tastes but simply nonsense? My suspicion is that it's just about 50/50 between the genders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-91076385008269111732010-09-02T07:16:50.550-04:002010-09-02T07:16:50.550-04:00This obsession with counting bylines and subjects ...This obsession with counting bylines and subjects makes me wonder whether they should be applied to other parts of the paper. While I'm not ready to waste an afternoon counting like some people, I'm guessing that:<br /><br />* Most of the fashion articles are about clothes for women. While there are some occasional sops to men, they're usually aimed at feminine men. Where are the articles for men who aren't metrosexuals?<br /><br />* The health section seems filled with female bylines and female-centric coverage is common. I'm guessing the breast cancer coverage is probably three to four times greater than prostate cancer. <br /><br />* Small business coverage seems to skew female. The stories about plucky startups that have no chance of growing like Google or others are usually about women who raised money by getting their husband/father to pay the freight.<br /><br />Are NYTPicker and others ready to push for 50/50 quotas in every section?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-6033662850951502852010-08-31T18:50:00.727-04:002010-08-31T18:50:00.727-04:00Here's one way to put,
"Times are tight ...Here's one way to put,<br /><br />"Times are tight and people are still dying, and the NYTCO can't afford to wait for seven men to hit the hay for one bitch, as it might miss out on the death of that special young lady or that especially large bovine withered authoritative old hag" please let us buy back your contract, and you'll have all day and all night our sexologists are standing by to jerk u dryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-30934764760148564852010-08-31T18:45:33.027-04:002010-08-31T18:45:33.027-04:00let me try this one more time..
my initial ratio ...let me try this one more time..<br /><br />my initial ratio re. 2010 was correct--it's 1:7 rather than 1:6--tho that doesn't change the magazine's gender ratio to that year. <br /><br />the language for that year's obits was slightly different, already separating the men from women. <br /><br />2010 to date<br />606 / 92 = 6.58695652 = 1:7 ratioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-55370050135133343542010-08-31T18:34:35.412-04:002010-08-31T18:34:35.412-04:00oops..
my math for the ratios was slightly off (...oops.. <br /><br />my math for the ratios was slightly off (tho the percentages are still correct). i didn't take the women out of the total number of obits when calculating the number of women to men.<br /><br />here's the corrected tally.<br /><br />i get 1:2 for the magazine, 1:12 for august 2010 to date, 1:6 for all of 2010 to date, and 1:7 for 1990.<br /><br />if i'm not mistaken, that gives the magazine six times the gender ratio to august, three times the gender ratio to 2010 to date and more than three times the gender ratio to 1990.<br /><br />my apologies. "we regret the error." ;)<br /><br />2009 ratio of nyt magazine<br />(23 - 8) / 8 = 1.87500 = 1:2 ratio<br /><br />august to date<br />(76 - 6) / 6 = 11.6666667 = 1:12 ratio <br />(78 - 6) / 6 = 12 = 1:12 ratio<br /><br />2010 to date<br />(606 - 92) / 92 = 5.58695652 = 1:6 ratio<br /><br />1990<br />(691 - 92) / 92 = 6.51086957 = 1:7 ratioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-50733066534805388852010-08-31T18:34:32.791-04:002010-08-31T18:34:32.791-04:00This is a systemic issue, why gang up on
one lowl...This is a systemic issue, why gang up on <br />one lowly dude who sounds like a perv and a sexist pig cause he was hazy& thought he ought to give signals of phallic jouissance (meanwhile making a fool of himself). Keep him and fire Janet Robinson for trying to be a profiteering corporatist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-28006705087489589472010-08-31T17:51:41.664-04:002010-08-31T17:51:41.664-04:00The Times is a family newspaper. Families revolve ...The Times is a family newspaper. Families revolve around subservience to the male figurehead, who likes to squirt his own cum in the kids cereal bowl in the morning and feed it to his kids for extra protein, with Mrs. or Ms. preferably wallflower. So NYT is doing its share of honoring the Taliban.Lisa T.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6CNKboKLHY&feature=player_embeddednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-16623523204932719832010-08-31T17:35:21.802-04:002010-08-31T17:35:21.802-04:00He wasn't an editor in 1990.
Beside, that kin...He wasn't an editor in 1990.<br /><br />Beside, that kind of public comment, is a firing offense in any respectable corporation, except a place that underestimates personal finance and personal health.Bloke Skinnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-22397677201194474692010-08-31T17:35:21.394-04:002010-08-31T17:35:21.394-04:00Sorry, but to be the first woman to do something i...Sorry, but to be the first woman to do something in a male dominated world is notable and warrants recognition in the obits of the NYTimes BECAUSE she is a woman doing it. I would guess that you would not argue against Jackie Robinson's obit running even though he is most famous for crossing the color line in major league baseball. So for example, when she dies I will expect to see an obit for Muriel Siebert as the first woman to purchase a seat on the NY Stock Exchange despite men holding ranks against her -- nine out of the first ten men she asked to sponsor her refused. And yes, breaking the gender barrier in that world is as notable as Robinson's achievement. This does not mitigate the need for affimrative action because as we know, tokenism will still abound even after someone makes the first step. In the case of the Exchange, it was over ten years before another woman was able to match her achievement; the men weren't making it any easier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-41969761639442616982010-08-31T16:40:09.562-04:002010-08-31T16:40:09.562-04:002009 edition of nyt magazine
23 / 8 = 2.87500 = 1:...2009 edition of nyt magazine<br />23 / 8 = 2.87500 = 1:3 ratio<br />8 / 23 = 0.347826087 = 34.8%<br /><br />august to date<br />78 / 6 = 13 = 1:13 ratio<br />6 / 78 = 0.0769230769 = 7.7%<br /><br />2010 to date<br />606 / 92 = 6.58695652 = 1:7 ratio<br />92 / 606 = 0.151815182 = 15.2%<br /><br />1990<br />691 / 92 = 7.51086957 = 1:8 ratio<br />92 / 691 = 0.133140376 = 13.3%Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-18491679644985794562010-08-31T16:39:06.139-04:002010-08-31T16:39:06.139-04:00excellent article. your point is well taken, but i...excellent article. your point is well taken, but i'm unclear on the math.<br /><br />you say the 2009 edition of the times magazine has "more than three times the gender ratio of the NYT obits page."<br /><br />but i get 1:3 (or 35%) for the magazine, 1:13 (or 7.7%) for august 2010 to date, 1:7 (or 15%) for all of 2010 to date, and 1:8 (or 13%) for 1990.<br /><br />if i'm not mistaken, that gives the magazine four times the gender ratio to august, two times the gender ratio to 2010 to date and nearly three times the gender ratio to 1990.<br /><br />there are a couple of other problems too, tho: you're comparing (a) 2009 to either a single month (august) or an entirely different year (2010 or 1990) and (b) cherry-picked obits in the magazine to presumably less extensively cherry-picked obits in the paper.<br /><br />but (as i said before) your point's well taken. there definitely seems to be a disparity. excellent article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-89456644938420540722010-08-31T16:04:40.506-04:002010-08-31T16:04:40.506-04:00His point is that women's importance must not ...His point is that women's importance must not be allowed to be verbalized. It's a fine line and he is part of the problem.Show me what a motherfucker looks like.http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/does-the-new-york-times-care-when-famous-women-die/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-51762290065085459602010-08-31T15:30:30.046-04:002010-08-31T15:30:30.046-04:00Read the entire Q&A, it's a lengthy weigh-...Read the entire Q&A, it's a lengthy weigh-in on this gross SOB's reported jerktime fantasies, electronic and otherwise. To profile without having to verify by snooping remotely on his computer terminal. But might easily qualify for a warranted raid, and Oh ya, little chicken shit, don't stop that lovefest of a PR nightmare. Whatever, the way they treat their wives after a good session of illegal pornographic consumption speaks volumes on its own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-81213047600337419282010-08-31T14:46:56.043-04:002010-08-31T14:46:56.043-04:00Sad thing is the women writers who deal with major...Sad thing is the women writers who deal with major social issues that are deemed feminine, are super bigots. Wonder how they got that way, and if their husbands' affairs are surfaced maybe they'll improve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-13502499798491035122010-08-31T14:44:40.924-04:002010-08-31T14:44:40.924-04:00Dicks come in all sizes, If they're still keep...Dicks come in all sizes, If they're still keeping such a large one employed, it means they are committed to stalling progress, and they're signalling to emancipated women that they have no allies in the NYT's upper ranks. <br /><br />Wonder how easy it'd be for them to lose advertisers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8007635024151290238.post-4136933837907479602010-08-31T12:14:54.861-04:002010-08-31T12:14:54.861-04:00You're often on the money, Mr. or Ms. Nytpicke...You're often on the money, Mr. or Ms. Nytpicker, but this posting is chickenpoo.<br /><br />Bill MacD. is completely right. <br /><br />I agree with Anonymous of 9:16 a.m. Aug. 31. Let's see some suggestions of women who should have been in the NYT obits but were not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com