When women fail to succeed at things we put the blame outside them, on sexism or patriarchy or whatever.

When men fail to succeed--pc be dammed!--we actually place the responsibility on them, calling them slackers or what not.

Can anyone here see why feminism is in decline? Any rational being can see the hypocrisy in this--two different standards hiding under the claim that equality hasn't yet been achieved (sorry, already done). It's as bad as the mindlessness on the religious right, just with different garb.

It's not the author who's saying boys are slackers--the boys themselves admit that they don't study as much, that they are content with a B instead of the A they could earn, that they play hours of video games a day, that they don't want to be perceived as studying too much, that they have trouble structuring their own day, etc. The more interesting question is why the guys feel this way, while the women feel more pressure to succeed and achieve. What can we do to motivate these guys to reach their potential, instead of just coasting?

Anecdotal evidence about the gender gap in studying/effort is backed up by data. My analysis of the Harvard College Alcohol Surveys (a nationally representative study) shows that the average GPA for college women is 3.19, for men, 3.08. Average study hours per day for women are 3.24 and 2.86. A separate study (using other data - Loury, L.D., 1997. The Gender Earnings Gap Among College-Educated Workers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50 (4), 580-593.) shows that women get higher wages for higher grades, men don't.

My personal reading of these data is that men don't need to study to get returns in the labor market; they have networks etc..., while women have to prove (through tangible performance like GPA) that they are good workers. it's the old a woman has to work twice as hard to get half the credit. Both genders know this and act accordingly while in college.

I loved this comment: "the fact that some young men flounder in college because they have "laundry problems" and don't know how "to wake up on time without a mom," as Greg Williams, a sophmore at Dickinson College lamented." It could be interpreted to mean: they finally have to take responsibility for their own welfare and can't manage it. Of course, that would be mean and sexist, wouldn't it?

Part of the reason women work harder in college than men continues to be because they have to work twice as hard to get half as far in the real world - and they know it. Watching "The Devil Wears Prada" this weekend, I was struck by this thought: Would Meryl Streep's character have risen to the top as she did if she had chosen to go into politics, broadcasting, or some other male-dominated field instead of choosing fashion?

Society puts the blame for lack of male enthusiasm in the classroom on women's liberation, not the men themselves, as if men's decreased chances of keeping some woman barefoot and pregnant have anything to do with ambition. So lets not pretend there's some huge push to put the responsibility for poor school performance on the boys who are performing badly. If anything, other than in feminist publications, there seems to be a groundswell of effort to find something, anything penisless at which to point the finger, thus all of the arguments about educational traditions, like sitting still and paying attention, being too "feminized," playtime too restricted, and the books unillustrated (because we all know boys can only read comic strips; god only knows how Socrates' all-male charges ever learned a thing!).

As for some of women's problems being (rightly, IMO) attributed to men in the mainstream, it would have to be a relatively recent development if it's true. I mean, for heaven's sake, women still get blamed for rape, despite demonstrably lacking the proper equipment to perpetrate the act. Throughout history, the main justification for women's low status in the world has been placed squarely on women and the god that made them: that women are just inherently inferior mentally, physically, and intellectually. While most of us have gotten past such blatant sexism, even now, the wage gap, if it is even acknowledged, is blamed on women's ostensible insistence upon birthing and raising the world's children (how dare they expect to *take a break* from the workforce without an economic penalty?), with no mention that at least the raising of them ought to be shared equally.

I suggest that you go off to some men's "rights" site if you want to read about how all of men's and boy's problems are born of women.

Having gone to a run-of-the-mill state university (UW-Eau Claire, if you must know), I'll gladly add an "Amen" to the young man's sentiment as to the relative non-difference between an A and a B. For all but the cream of the crop (and those attending more prestigious universities or those who aspire to post-graduate study), the difference between a 3.50 and a 3.00 grade point average is pretty minor.

In fact, I know that many employers shun the uber-achievers. A candidate with a 4.0 average is just as likely to be seen as inflexible and incapable of dealing with failure as someone who might have struggled a bit early in college but managed to graduate with moderate success. One of my former colleagues who was active in recruiting recent grads (for a successful company that competed strongly for top-notch grads) would gather up all the 4.0 GPA resumes and promptly throw them all in the trash. Male or female, for that matter.

Why the difference between male and female students, though? I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons, but somehow I doubt there's an overarching sense of "male entitlement" involved. I didn't give much of a rip about getting straight A's (same as many of my classmates), and the thought of "I'm a guy, so I don't have to try as hard" never once popped into my head.

I think feminism, in its myriad forms, has taught many young women that they need to work a lot harder to get ahead. Sadly, in this male-dominated society, this is probably still true. But the fact that young men don't feel the need to run just as fast on the gerbil wheel is hardly a harbinger of doom. It's just that not nearly as many people are drumming into their heads that a 3.75 GPA won't quite cut it.

And perhaps (hopefully) in the long run this trend in female over-achievement will help balance out our society's patriarchal bent. Alas, my guess is that it'll just churn out more masculine-thinking, must-win women.