Articles in the Washington Post (front page) and New York Times report
uncritically, a horribly biased study, which will kill the deserved
concern for boys' badly lagging girls in school and being Ritalinized
en masse.

The media should have gotten the first clue of its
being biased when they noticed who funded it: the American Association
of University Women. If a study on smoking was funded by the tobacco
industry, would you give it much credibility? At minimum, wouldn't you
vet it carefully?

Yet regarding gender issues, the media has a
double standard for how it vets and reports pro woman/minority research
vs pro male (let alone, pro-white) research findings : It censors the
latter and reports the former uncritically and as thought it were fact,
to wit, the title of the article, "No Crisis For Boys In Schools, Study
Says."

Here are the problems with the AAUW study:

1. It
says, deceptively, that both boys and girls scores have increased. Why
did the study (or at least the reporting) omit is that girls' scores
increased much more? In a world in which ever higher-level skill is
required, does it mean there's no crisis for boys if their scores have
increased a bit while girls' have increased much more? Why did the
media not probe that finding as it surely would have if it were a
pro-male finding?

2. The study says there's virtually no gap
between boys and girls who enter college. Of course not---the
requirements for getting into college are roughly equal for boys and
girls. What the study (or the reporting) fails to say is that many more
girls than boys go to college. Why did the media not probe that finding
as it would have it were a pro-male finding?

2a. The study
reports that since 1982, 57% of the college graduates are women. Why do
the study's authors go back to 1982? To hide the fact that the gap is
larger today. For the class of 2008 the ratio is 60/40 and is projected
to increase further. Wouldn't the media have probed that finding if it
were pro-male?

3. The study reports the terribly deceptive
statistic: "Among all women and men working full time, year-round,
median annual earnings for women were 77 percent of men's earnings in
2005." Of course, the study (or the reporting) doesn't mention that a
far smaller percentage of women are working full-time. And it doesn't
mention that women disproportionately avoid the high-paying fields:
engineering, computer science, coal mining, sewer repair, etc. And that
even those who work full-time work, on average, far fewer hours than
men who work full-time. Or that women in corporations are far less
likely to do the things required to be promoted to higher-level jobs,
such as move their family to a far-flung place (Montgomery, Alabama
anyone.) As reported in the book, Why Men Earn More, FOR
THE SAME WORK, women earn the same or more than men. Why does the media
give a free pass to such as misleading statistic as "women earn 77
cents on the dollar?" Wouldn't the media vet that claim if the
statistic favored men?

4. The study omits the fact that eight
times as many boys as girls are put on the methamphetamine-like Ritalin
and similar drugs. If it was a pro-male finding, wouldn't the media
have made the effort to interview and quote sources that would have
presented that? But because the AAUW study advocates for females, the
media somehow didn't bother.

5. The study omits that the suicide
rate for boys is 400% of girls'. If it were the reverse, wouldn't the
media have made the effort to interview and quote sources that would
have presented that? But because the AAUW study advocates for females,
the media somehow didn't bother.

6. The study omits that boys
drop out of high school at a significantly higher rate. If if the
reverse were reported, wouldn't the media have made the effort to
interview and quote sources that would have presented that? But because
the AAUW study advocates for females, the media somehow didn't bother.

Truly, I don't understand why the media would be so relentlessly unfair to boys and men.