Gender Equality According To Emma Watson. An Excellent Perspective

[mudwhistle]

It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.

Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.

Sometimes, maybe so, but there are indeed feminists who do hate men.
The first message board I joined back in '98 was the Ms Magazine board (no longer exists) and there were self-proclaimed feminists on that board, that came out and freely admitted they did not like men, and wanted to be as free from men as possible.

Now obviously there are certain men that make it easy for most women to despise them, but many of these women on this board, let it be known they were not interested in finding out which ones were okay, and which ones were bad. They simply hated them for being a man.

Sure there are all types in any large group of persons.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.

Get used to it.

I was never a member of that club. Thinking everyone is seems to be the problem.

 

[mudwhistle]

S

It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.

Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.

Sometimes, maybe so, but there are indeed feminists who do hate men.
The first message board I joined back in '98 was the Ms Magazine board (no longer exists) and there were self-proclaimed feminists on that board, that came out and freely admitted they did not like men, and wanted to be as free from men as possible.

Now obviously there are certain men that make it easy for most women to despise them, but many of these women on this board, let it be known they were not interested in finding out which ones were okay, and which ones were bad. They simply hated them for being a man.

Sure there are all types in any large group of persons.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.

Get used to it.

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

God I love it when people have to mischaracterize what I say to desperately grasp for some sort of point. When women didn't vote, it was easy to ignore them. Just as it would be with any group. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thanks in great part to Title IX, women had equal opportunities in college (it had more of an impact in the class room than sports). You see that manifest itself with more women graduating college than men (It has been that way since the mid 80's if I recall). With education comes tactics on how best to achieve political or societal goals. Voting is an open avenue and women are using it.

The GOP, for reasons only known to them, has passed something like 4,000 restrictions on reproductive rights, are forcing women to drive up to 800 miles to have an abortion due to these restrictions, so on and so fourth. All that has happened in the last two years.

So politically, there will be retribution. If you don't like it..tough. That is simply the political reality. That the GOP is dominated by old white men is just a coincidence. Women in the GOP who are just as brain dead as their male counterparts will be targeted too.

Sounds like a threat to me.
I keep hearing about future paybacks, but the truth is we are seeing that women can be just as big of screw ups as men can be. They're paying us back by showing us they are no better than us in some cases.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I don't see how they have improved anything.

It's wasn't supposed to be about us verses them. It was supposed to be about equality.

 

[mudwhistle]

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

God I love it when people have to mischaracterize what I say to desperately grasp for some sort of point. When women didn't vote, it was easy to ignore them. Just as it would be with any group. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thanks in great part to Title IX, women had equal opportunities in college (it had more of an impact in the class room than sports). You see that manifest itself with more women graduating college than men (It has been that way since the mid 80's if I recall). With education comes tactics on how best to achieve political or societal goals. Voting is an open avenue and women are using it.

The GOP, for reasons only known to them, has passed something like 4,000 restrictions on reproductive rights, are forcing women to drive up to 800 miles to have an abortion due to these restrictions, so on and so fourth. All that has happened in the last two years.

So politically, there will be retribution. If you don't like it..tough. That is simply the political reality. That the GOP is dominated by old white men is just a coincidence. Women in the GOP who are just as brain dead as their male counterparts will be targeted too.

And yet Romney got 44% of the overall female vote. so 44% of women are brain dead?

Well I was speaking about the elected reps--who insist that you "bring it down to a woman's level".

Keep digging.

Digging? You make my point for me.

Also Title X was a disaster for small mens sports in colleges, but hey! can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs...

How dare girls demand the same funding for their sports as boys get. You pine for the good old days when women knew their place...right?

The same funding is not the issue, its the implementation. The issue really is the administrators went the easy route and made it based on a strict split of gender in the school, instead of basing it on demand. I had no desire to participate in sports in the school, so guess what? I shouldn't have counted in the split figure. Schools should have been required to figure out the participation ratio, and go with that.

Do you disagree that more men than women in a given school probably want to participate in competitive sports?

And again, I guess those guys in the small sports programs are just casualties of war....

Casualties of entrenched idiocy...yes.

There are what, 85 scholarships you can make available for your prized football team if you're the AD of a Div I College? Yet only 22 are necessary for an offense and a defense if you want a scholarship "student" athlete at each position.
ADs could have said, yup..we'll cut it down to 40 or 50 and share. But of course that didn't happen. Did it?

If the men's wrestling team has an enemy; it's not the women's volleyball team; it's the football team hogging all of the dollars and not returning that much value to the university in many cases.

Football teams generate as much as 90% of the cash in most major universities. The rest of the sports live off of their income. What's left over goes to the school.

 

[candycorn]

S

It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.

Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.

Sometimes, maybe so, but there are indeed feminists who do hate men.
The first message board I joined back in '98 was the Ms Magazine board (no longer exists) and there were self-proclaimed feminists on that board, that came out and freely admitted they did not like men, and wanted to be as free from men as possible.

Now obviously there are certain men that make it easy for most women to despise them, but many of these women on this board, let it be known they were not interested in finding out which ones were okay, and which ones were bad. They simply hated them for being a man.

Sure there are all types in any large group of persons.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.

Get used to it.

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

God I love it when people have to mischaracterize what I say to desperately grasp for some sort of point. When women didn't vote, it was easy to ignore them. Just as it would be with any group. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thanks in great part to Title IX, women had equal opportunities in college (it had more of an impact in the class room than sports). You see that manifest itself with more women graduating college than men (It has been that way since the mid 80's if I recall). With education comes tactics on how best to achieve political or societal goals. Voting is an open avenue and women are using it.

The GOP, for reasons only known to them, has passed something like 4,000 restrictions on reproductive rights, are forcing women to drive up to 800 miles to have an abortion due to these restrictions, so on and so fourth. All that has happened in the last two years.

So politically, there will be retribution. If you don't like it..tough. That is simply the political reality. That the GOP is dominated by old white men is just a coincidence. Women in the GOP who are just as brain dead as their male counterparts will be targeted too.

Sounds like a threat to me.
I keep hearing about future paybacks, but the truth is we are seeing that women can be just as big of screw ups as men can be. They're paying us back by showing us they are no better than us in some cases.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I don't see how they have improved anything.

It's wasn't supposed to be about us verses them. It was supposed to be about equality.

I suppose it is a threat to anti-choice politicians of any stripe.

 

[candycorn]

God I love it when people have to mischaracterize what I say to desperately grasp for some sort of point. When women didn't vote, it was easy to ignore them. Just as it would be with any group. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thanks in great part to Title IX, women had equal opportunities in college (it had more of an impact in the class room than sports). You see that manifest itself with more women graduating college than men (It has been that way since the mid 80's if I recall). With education comes tactics on how best to achieve political or societal goals. Voting is an open avenue and women are using it.

The GOP, for reasons only known to them, has passed something like 4,000 restrictions on reproductive rights, are forcing women to drive up to 800 miles to have an abortion due to these restrictions, so on and so fourth. All that has happened in the last two years.

So politically, there will be retribution. If you don't like it..tough. That is simply the political reality. That the GOP is dominated by old white men is just a coincidence. Women in the GOP who are just as brain dead as their male counterparts will be targeted too.

And yet Romney got 44% of the overall female vote. so 44% of women are brain dead?

Well I was speaking about the elected reps--who insist that you "bring it down to a woman's level".

Keep digging.

Digging? You make my point for me.

Also Title X was a disaster for small mens sports in colleges, but hey! can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs...

How dare girls demand the same funding for their sports as boys get. You pine for the good old days when women knew their place...right?

The same funding is not the issue, its the implementation. The issue really is the administrators went the easy route and made it based on a strict split of gender in the school, instead of basing it on demand. I had no desire to participate in sports in the school, so guess what? I shouldn't have counted in the split figure. Schools should have been required to figure out the participation ratio, and go with that.

Do you disagree that more men than women in a given school probably want to participate in competitive sports?

And again, I guess those guys in the small sports programs are just casualties of war....

Casualties of entrenched idiocy...yes.

There are what, 85 scholarships you can make available for your prized football team if you're the AD of a Div I College? Yet only 22 are necessary for an offense and a defense if you want a scholarship "student" athlete at each position.
ADs could have said, yup..we'll cut it down to 40 or 50 and share. But of course that didn't happen. Did it?

If the men's wrestling team has an enemy; it's not the women's volleyball team; it's the football team hogging all of the dollars and not returning that much value to the university in many cases.

Football teams generate as much as 90% of the cash in most major universities. The rest of the sports live off of their income. What's left over goes to the school.

90%? Gee, you'd think that tuition would be free at those universities. Somehow it's not.

Link for that?

 

[martybegan]

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

God I love it when people have to mischaracterize what I say to desperately grasp for some sort of point. When women didn't vote, it was easy to ignore them. Just as it would be with any group. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thanks in great part to Title IX, women had equal opportunities in college (it had more of an impact in the class room than sports). You see that manifest itself with more women graduating college than men (It has been that way since the mid 80's if I recall). With education comes tactics on how best to achieve political or societal goals. Voting is an open avenue and women are using it.

The GOP, for reasons only known to them, has passed something like 4,000 restrictions on reproductive rights, are forcing women to drive up to 800 miles to have an abortion due to these restrictions, so on and so fourth. All that has happened in the last two years.

So politically, there will be retribution. If you don't like it..tough. That is simply the political reality. That the GOP is dominated by old white men is just a coincidence. Women in the GOP who are just as brain dead as their male counterparts will be targeted too.

And yet Romney got 44% of the overall female vote. so 44% of women are brain dead?

Well I was speaking about the elected reps--who insist that you "bring it down to a woman's level".

Keep digging.

Digging? You make my point for me.

Also Title X was a disaster for small mens sports in colleges, but hey! can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs...

How dare girls demand the same funding for their sports as boys get. You pine for the good old days when women knew their place...right?

The same funding is not the issue, its the implementation. The issue really is the administrators went the easy route and made it based on a strict split of gender in the school, instead of basing it on demand. I had no desire to participate in sports in the school, so guess what? I shouldn't have counted in the split figure. Schools should have been required to figure out the participation ratio, and go with that.

Do you disagree that more men than women in a given school probably want to participate in competitive sports?

And again, I guess those guys in the small sports programs are just casualties of war....

Casualties of entrenched idiocy...yes.

There are what, 85 scholarships you can make available for your prized football team if you're the AD of a Div I College? Yet only 22 are necessary for an offense and a defense if you want a scholarship "student" athlete at each position.
ADs could have said, yup..we'll cut it down to 40 or 50 and share. But of course that didn't happen. Did it?

If the men's wrestling team has an enemy; it's not the women's volleyball team; it's the football team hogging all of the dollars and not returning that much value to the university in many cases.

At the big schools its the football team making all the money. and guess what? My school didn't HAVE a football team, and yet men's wrestling, mens vollyball??? POOF.

 

[MaxGrit]

It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.

Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.

Sometimes, maybe so, but there are indeed feminists who do hate men.
The first message board I joined back in '98 was the Ms Magazine board (no longer exists) and there were self-proclaimed feminists on that board, that came out and freely admitted they did not like men, and wanted to be as free from men as possible.

Now obviously there are certain men that make it easy for most women to despise them, but many of these women on this board, let it be known they were not interested in finding out which ones were okay, and which ones were bad. They simply hated them for being a man.

Sure there are all types in any large group of persons.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.

Get used to it.

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

Hate permeates her feminist position. Hence feminism and misandry are closely associated.

The tragedy is that they are seriously hurting generations of young women who fall for their lies.

 

[MaxGrit]

First, I don't speak for all feminists because they sure as hell don't speak for me. If you were to conduct a personal survey of women that were actively protesting during the women's movement of the seventies, you would come up with very few. There is a reason for that. You are looking at a predominantly upper middle class white women in universities. The rest of the women were working. Kind of like how they did before and during the fifties.

Feminism is divided. It's divided by class, race and culture. Only we can't have these conversations because (what I call) the elite squad has center stage. Always. They never shut up. Many of them have arranged their lives so that they don't have to participate in life in the same manner as the rest of their gender. In fact, many of them come from a place of wealth so that participation is optional---meaning they can retreat any time at all and suffer no real consequences. Maybe they volunteer a little time. So, then this group decides they are going to educate the rest of the society because they are more superior via their class/status. Most often, they don't bother to do any research into actual issues. Great. A group of women that have nil life experience, little to any research and gets to frame the arguments and then doesn't actually have to defend them because participation is optional. When they do, it becomes petty and superficial and then they expect the rest of us to defend their position when they opt out.

You pretty much described the Progressive/Liberal ideology and mindset of its pushers.

You experienced first hand the patterns I see.

 

[candycorn]

It always tickles me when a woman supposedly "hates" men...only the men who are the most hateful both in speech and their boyish antics are the ones that feel most betrayed.

Perhaps men who feel that women "hate" them should examine their own values.

Sometimes, maybe so, but there are indeed feminists who do hate men.
The first message board I joined back in '98 was the Ms Magazine board (no longer exists) and there were self-proclaimed feminists on that board, that came out and freely admitted they did not like men, and wanted to be as free from men as possible.

Now obviously there are certain men that make it easy for most women to despise them, but many of these women on this board, let it be known they were not interested in finding out which ones were okay, and which ones were bad. They simply hated them for being a man.

Sure there are all types in any large group of persons.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.

Get used to it.

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

Hate permeates her feminist position. Hence feminism and misandry are closely associated.

The tragedy is that they are seriously hurting generations of young women who fall for their lies.

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

 

[mudwhistle]

And yet Romney got 44% of the overall female vote. so 44% of women are brain dead?

Well I was speaking about the elected reps--who insist that you "bring it down to a woman's level".

Keep digging.

Digging? You make my point for me.

Also Title X was a disaster for small mens sports in colleges, but hey! can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs...

How dare girls demand the same funding for their sports as boys get. You pine for the good old days when women knew their place...right?

The same funding is not the issue, its the implementation. The issue really is the administrators went the easy route and made it based on a strict split of gender in the school, instead of basing it on demand. I had no desire to participate in sports in the school, so guess what? I shouldn't have counted in the split figure. Schools should have been required to figure out the participation ratio, and go with that.

Do you disagree that more men than women in a given school probably want to participate in competitive sports?

And again, I guess those guys in the small sports programs are just casualties of war....

Casualties of entrenched idiocy...yes.

There are what, 85 scholarships you can make available for your prized football team if you're the AD of a Div I College? Yet only 22 are necessary for an offense and a defense if you want a scholarship "student" athlete at each position.
ADs could have said, yup..we'll cut it down to 40 or 50 and share. But of course that didn't happen. Did it?

If the men's wrestling team has an enemy; it's not the women's volleyball team; it's the football team hogging all of the dollars and not returning that much value to the university in many cases.

Football teams generate as much as 90% of the cash in most major universities. The rest of the sports live off of their income. What's left over goes to the school.

90%? Gee, you'd think that tuition would be free at those universities. Somehow it's not.

Link for that?

No offense, but you learn more from doing your own research I've discovered.

 

[mudwhistle]

N

S

Sometimes, maybe so, but there are indeed feminists who do hate men.
The first message board I joined back in '98 was the Ms Magazine board (no longer exists) and there were self-proclaimed feminists on that board, that came out and freely admitted they did not like men, and wanted to be as free from men as possible.

Now obviously there are certain men that make it easy for most women to despise them, but many of these women on this board, let it be known they were not interested in finding out which ones were okay, and which ones were bad. They simply hated them for being a man.

Sure there are all types in any large group of persons.

I'm of the opinion that the only reason you hear so much about it nowadays is that women have the power of the ballot between the sexes and will (soon) have the power of the pocketbook as more women graduate from college than their men. It's easy to ignore, chastise, and steamroll a group when there is no retribution. Now that the GOP is feeling retribution...the old boy's club is crying foul.

Get used to it.

So you populate a post bout feminism not being about man-hating with a response implying "retribution" and said men needing to be able to "take it like men"?

God, I love when progressives get mixed up on what bullshit they are supposed to spew.

God I love it when people have to mischaracterize what I say to desperately grasp for some sort of point. When women didn't vote, it was easy to ignore them. Just as it would be with any group. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Thanks in great part to Title IX, women had equal opportunities in college (it had more of an impact in the class room than sports). You see that manifest itself with more women graduating college than men (It has been that way since the mid 80's if I recall). With education comes tactics on how best to achieve political or societal goals. Voting is an open avenue and women are using it.

The GOP, for reasons only known to them, has passed something like 4,000 restrictions on reproductive rights, are forcing women to drive up to 800 miles to have an abortion due to these restrictions, so on and so fourth. All that has happened in the last two years.

So politically, there will be retribution. If you don't like it..tough. That is simply the political reality. That the GOP is dominated by old white men is just a coincidence. Women in the GOP who are just as brain dead as their male counterparts will be targeted too.

Sounds like a threat to me.
I keep hearing about future paybacks, but the truth is we are seeing that women can be just as big of screw ups as men can be. They're paying us back by showing us they are no better than us in some cases.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I don't see how they have improved anything.

It's wasn't supposed to be about us verses them. It was supposed to be about equality.

I suppose it is a threat to anti-choice politicians of any stripe.

Not too many of those left.

 

[Meathead]

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

Why?

 

[mudwhistle]

S

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

Why?

She was being sarcastic.

The entire premise that Sandra Fluke raised was not only controversial but ludicrous. Not to mention it was hatched with a deception.

 

[MaxGrit]

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

She went to Georgetown because she wanted to sue the University. No other reason.

Besides, what's wrong with slut? I'm certain it's mainly women who use slut to denigrate other women.

 

[candycorn]

Well I was speaking about the elected reps--who insist that you "bring it down to a woman's level".

Digging? You make my point for me.

How dare girls demand the same funding for their sports as boys get. You pine for the good old days when women knew their place...right?

The same funding is not the issue, its the implementation. The issue really is the administrators went the easy route and made it based on a strict split of gender in the school, instead of basing it on demand. I had no desire to participate in sports in the school, so guess what? I shouldn't have counted in the split figure. Schools should have been required to figure out the participation ratio, and go with that.

Do you disagree that more men than women in a given school probably want to participate in competitive sports?

And again, I guess those guys in the small sports programs are just casualties of war....

Casualties of entrenched idiocy...yes.

There are what, 85 scholarships you can make available for your prized football team if you're the AD of a Div I College? Yet only 22 are necessary for an offense and a defense if you want a scholarship "student" athlete at each position.
ADs could have said, yup..we'll cut it down to 40 or 50 and share. But of course that didn't happen. Did it?

If the men's wrestling team has an enemy; it's not the women's volleyball team; it's the football team hogging all of the dollars and not returning that much value to the university in many cases.

Football teams generate as much as 90% of the cash in most major universities. The rest of the sports live off of their income. What's left over goes to the school.

90%? Gee, you'd think that tuition would be free at those universities. Somehow it's not.

Link for that?

No offense, but you learn more from doing your own research I've discovered.

You should start doing yours...
College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN
Myth College Sports Are a Cash Cow
NCAA report Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN
Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies

 

[candycorn]

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

She went to Georgetown because she wanted to sue the University. No other reason.

Besides, what's wrong with slut? I'm certain it's mainly women who use slut to denigrate other women.

The war on women from conservatives has no end in sight I see.

 

[MaxGrit]

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

She went to Georgetown because she wanted to sue the University. No other reason.

Besides, what's wrong with slut? I'm certain it's mainly women who use slut to denigrate other women.

The war on women from conservatives has no end in sight I see.

LoL feminazis are the real danger to women. War on women is a ploy without any substance behind it.

Conservatives advocate for the family unit, marital fidelity, teaching young women to find a good husband before having children, parental involvement in the kids education.

 

[boilermaker55]

We are sure it sounded like that to you but then you are not as mature as Ms. Watson.

Came off kinda whiny to me

 

[mudwhistle]

Yeah I hated it when Sandra Fluke called Rush Limabaugh a slut.

She went to Georgetown because she wanted to sue the University. No other reason.

Besides, what's wrong with slut? I'm certain it's mainly women who use slut to denigrate other women.

The war on women from conservatives has no end in sight I see.

It's all in your mind.
Just ask Emma Watson.

 

[mudwhistle]

The same funding is not the issue, its the implementation. The issue really is the administrators went the easy route and made it based on a strict split of gender in the school, instead of basing it on demand. I had no desire to participate in sports in the school, so guess what? I shouldn't have counted in the split figure. Schools should have been required to figure out the participation ratio, and go with that.

Do you disagree that more men than women in a given school probably want to participate in competitive sports?

And again, I guess those guys in the small sports programs are just casualties of war....

Casualties of entrenched idiocy...yes.

There are what, 85 scholarships you can make available for your prized football team if you're the AD of a Div I College? Yet only 22 are necessary for an offense and a defense if you want a scholarship "student" athlete at each position.
ADs could have said, yup..we'll cut it down to 40 or 50 and share. But of course that didn't happen. Did it?

If the men's wrestling team has an enemy; it's not the women's volleyball team; it's the football team hogging all of the dollars and not returning that much value to the university in many cases.

Football teams generate as much as 90% of the cash in most major universities. The rest of the sports live off of their income. What's left over goes to the school.

90%? Gee, you'd think that tuition would be free at those universities. Somehow it's not.

Link for that?

No offense, but you learn more from doing your own research I've discovered.

You should start doing yours...
College Athletics Revenues and Expenses - ESPN
Myth College Sports Are a Cash Cow
NCAA report Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN
Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies

Not 90%.

As much as 90%

I figured you'd be your normal reactionary self. Just when I thought we were experiencing a kernel of understanding.

It appears you're the type Emma Watson was talking about.