Lots of intense debate going on here, very enjoyable reading!!

I suppose there are a lot of men out there such as the various anonymous contributers who seem to be frustrated with how role of men and women has changed since the 60's. I would like to volunteer that we are all trying to find our way in this world of changing values and mores; contradictions are going to surface, not everything is going to be fair. However, it is hard to take the intensity of your outrage seriously because reality does not support it. Sorry you feel like you must make the first move with women and pay for the first date, but women still earn less money, still make up the majority of public assistance recipients, are the minority in government, the boardroom, etc.

Having said that, I agree with the views reflected in several posts that both men and women are responsible for the current state of gender politics in this society and we are all failing the children. Boys and girls are suffering from the cutbacks in education. The emotional growth of all children is being stunted by this hypersexual, hyperviolent, consumer culture. How do we fix it? Who the hell knows. But we certainly dont want to go back to the days where women were forced to stay at home and men were forced to shoulder the financial responsiblity of supporting a family (emphasis on the word FORCED). All arguments suggesting we should return to that fascist state are to be rejected out of hand. As is anyone suggesting that women considering higher education do so at the peril of their reproductive future.

There is no harm in a scholarly examination of why the educational pendulum has swung so far left resulting in decreased male participation in higher education. I think we all want an educational system where as many children as possible succeed. Calling that scholarly examination "The war on boys" is devisive and drowns any merit the article may have had in a sea of debate on who pays for dinner (maybe our homosexual brothers and sisters out there can help put that debate to rest).

That concludes my first post!! Yippee! All constructive criticism is appreciated.

Brainless hypermasculinty goes hand in hand with the Brainless hyperfeminine archetype which is pervading pop culture. Both seem to be born of fear of a future society where men and women have greater autonomy in choosing how they live their lives. People long for the pendulum to swing backwards - to return to the uncomfortable and familiar world where square pegs were hammered into round holes. What happened to men that did not behave as Maddox's father did in his day? Do we want to return to those times? While some of Maddox's jokes are funny, to me, the implications of his humor are not. Perhaps that is why Maddox does not engage in racial humor. For him, the benefit of the feminist movement on society is still debatable while the benefits of the civil rights movement are not.

8 hours for sleep, 8 hours for work and school, 2 hours preparing for the day and commuting to and from school and work, 2 hours to prepare and consume dinner...4 hours are left. Of course the time management varies depending on the family and the number of parents and children involved, but if a child has 2-4 hours of homework, when is a parent supposed to raise their child? 4 hours remain for the physical education, art, and music appreciation eliminated from most public school programs. 4 hours for parents to instill their values and beliefs into their offspring. 4 hours to combat the effects of pop culture and peer pressure. Four hours for parents to spend alone developing their own interpersonal relationships and pursuing their own interests. (Of course the best parents forfeit this time for the sake of their children, thats what prozac and divorce lawyers are for, right?) Franklin and Covey themselves could not accomplish this massive to do list in a days time. Some homework is ok, but if it does not instill a love of learning and robs a parent of their precious 4 hours with their children, then what is the point?

If so, anything resembling state sponsored censorship should make us all very nervous. Instead, twenty-three years off schedule, Americans seem to be begging for an Orwellian police state. Let's just keep making everything illegal and restricted until were all unemployed and incarcerated, except for those who choose to work as censors and jailers. Our "free" speech does not require additional restrictions. Imus' mean spirited and unprovoked comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team were condemned by a large segment of society because they focused on physical characteristics associated with the ethnicity of the majority of the players. Society responded by requesting that he lose his mainstream platform to broadcast his unpopular, negative opinions. We can certainly seek to marginalize forms of expression that we find distasteful by withdrawing our support of it, but I would never deny him the right to say whatever he wants and reap the consequences of his utterances.