The "polite suggestion" that anyone pay attention to the educational plight of boys must be met with the strongest condemnation, according to partisan feminism. It is insufficient to declare, as one prominent philosopher did recently, that "every civilized person is a feminist now in the ways that matter." According to the "Tumbler" and "Instagram" feminists, one must openly acknowledge that #menaretrash. Failure to participate in the abjection of one's maleness--a characteristic that is simultaneously inherently, irreducibly violent, toxic and yet socially constructed--is viewed with suspicion. The logic of relative power is game theoretic, weighted by oppression, perceived or genuine.

Raising a question is condescendingly dismissed as a "polite suggestion" as if it were uttered by a dog whistling reactionary conservative, and declared "an equivalence." In case the unargued point was lost, the defamatory stigma of intellectual dishonesty is added for good measure.

Nothing was said about what resources--if any--should be allocated to the welfare of boys. Men have all the power--if boys are left behind, this is more than offset by an overwhelming, unstoppable tide of misogyny. No accounting is necessary--look around, they say, as if an unmoderated Internet comment would withstand peer review. Whatever the argument, or non-argument, no resources should be allocated to boys. "Everything is already about boys." The proof is that the concern for advancing girls is in reality about boys. Girls are hardly even mentioned. They aren't mentioned. They are effaced. Silenced.

The suggestion that any resources should be allocated to boys education must be preempted before it can be articulated. If it were articulated, what would we make of the feminist assurance that the concern with "...girls in schools, girls needing mentors..." is "not a zero-sum game"?