Another study, much like the Educational Sector's bankrupt report by Sara Mead, which concludes, that its not bad news about boys doing worse, but good news about girls doing better, and that boys are doing better than ever before.

Of course, these arguments are flat ridiculous. To argue that boys are "doing better than ever before," both the Education Sector and AAUW base their argument on absolute numbers. That is to say that more men go to college, than say in 1950. The argument is bankrupt, easily destroyed by arguing the absurd. for instance, say that today, 100,000 people are going to college, 60,000 girls, and 40,000 boys. All of a sudden, the neext day, the college population doubles to 200,000 people, 150,000 girls, and 50,000 boys. The argument can be made, well, boys are doing better than ever. Now we have 10,000 more boys going to college. But in reality, whereas yesterday we had a distrubtion of 60% girls, and 40% boys, today, we have 75% girls and 25% boys.

In 1992 when the AAUW came out with its report in 1992 that girls were being screwed in schools, the AAUW supressed evidence that girls had already surpased boys in almost all subjects and almost all measures. That trend has condinued. Today, with 57% of colleges made up of women, the disparity continues to grow.

When women were the ones outnumbered at colleges, we blamed the schools, and passed title IX. When boys are getting screwed, we blame the boys and largely ignore the problem. Anybody who has studied the situation knows that both the Education Sector and the AAUW's recent report are attempts to make lemonade out of lemons, by putting a gloss that which has become abundantly apparent; boys are getting metaphorically raped by an education system.

What has happened is that women's organizations, in an attempt to mitigate the fair distrubtion of resources, have played the race card and said, oh, don't worry white middle America, your sons aren't doing that much worse that white girls, its only the blacks and Latinos who are woefully behind -- no problem here. The argument is racist, and patently untrue on both the interpretation or the research and the actual facts. Boys -- ALL BOYS -- regardless of income or race fare worse than girls, a reversal of fortunes that has specifically been ignored by both the media and academics, because aren't as sypathetic as girls.

Both the Orwellian language used of the arguments by opponents of helping boys, and the repeated attempts to disprove the obvious, betray the notion that girls progress has been not come at the expense of boys. This is a fight about resources. Thank God for the women who are mothers of boys.

It is also rather scandelous that Title IX, a gender neutral statute, has been interpreted by the bureocratic establishment as benefiting anyone but girls. The enforcement has been corrupt.

As once told to me:

"How long does it take a women to orgasm? Who cares."

It's about contacts and connections. Who inhabits your nepotistic universe? For instance, why is Billie Boy Kristol a columnist for the NYT? Nepotism. It has nothing to do with talent, competence or success. Just like compensation packages for CEO's have nothing to do with competence. Who you know, bro?

doesn't it? It's no more fun if you are a woman, than if you are a man. If a women is earning enough money that she is required to pay spousal support, then the argument that there is some amorphous, abstract sexism still at work that should preclude her from paying goes out the window.

33% of families have women who earn more? How does that comport with the 77 cents per dollar. I think there may be some cooking of the books here. Maybe politics is blurring reality.

over 80% of America's disposable income has been known for a long time. If you look on what is on television, the medium is almost entirely geared toward women, because they are American's biggest consumers.

If you take the argument made recently by the AAUW regarding the "boy crisis," which is that there is not a boy crisis, there is a "some boy crisis," you could make the same argument the politics of gender and income. That is why the AAUW's argument will back-fire. When you do comparative disadvanage by measures more percise than gender, white women come out way ahead. It's enough to scare the bejesus out of any good feminist.

Women are happy to be single, and a new study was recently released which "set out to find out exactly why he and a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage." It seems we want nothing to do with each other...and we're happy about it.

you may not like it, but it is going to go mainstream soon. Look at San Francisco, and the Erotic Sex workers Provider's Union (ESPU), of which I am a member, is about to qualify to put a ballot measure on the November ballot in San Francisco to stop the enforcement of prostitution laws.

to girls determined to get pregnant is at issue at all? the girls didn't make a pact to go have sex, protected or unprotect, damn the consequences, but instead decided to get "PREGNANT." Offering birth control doesn't seem a reasonable argument in this situation.

how a self described patriarchal religion came to be dominated by women? it seems antithetical to me. it would seem to me that guys would abandon religion if their lives become governed by the dictates of a demographic that wants to reign in masculine behavior using God as its moral authority.

Actually, that's why I don't understand why so many guys buy into Christianity. Like the Catholic Church. Even though the priesthood is male, the mainstay of Catholicism are by and large women (correct me if I am wrong). Why would any guy want to join an organization that says that even thinking of sex can lead to an eternity of skinny dipping in a lake of fire.