Stephanie Coontz's recent NYT article, The Myth of Male Decline, purports to show that men aren't declining in society but are actually winning when you separate the wheat from the chaff.
For an example, she points out that it is wrong to compare men's income to women's without adjusting for the attributes such as education.
So while colleges might be 60% women, it's wrong to say that men are declining because they still earn more when you control for education. In other words, use ceteris paribus you morons(ummm wage-gap?)! Men are still winning! Still earning more dollaz for every dollar a woman makes!
Refuting her arguments isn't the objective here. It's the juxtaposition of her reasoning with "men and women are the same, especially in maths" professor Janet Hyde's reasoning of why boys get higher SAT scores. And I quote:
In 2007 the SAT was taken by 798,030 females but only 690,500 males, a gap of more than 100,000 people. Assuming that SAT takers represent the top portion of the performance distribution, this surplus of females taking the SAT means that the female group dips farther down into the performance distribution than does the male group. It is therefore not surprising that females, on average, score somewhat lower than males. The gender gap is likely in large part a sampling artifact.
Both bemoan dominance of men at higher echelons. Oh well...
PS - Regarding the cartoon and how it's interpreted by the feminist species:
I just googled the words “beer advertisements” and already the first page of results are scantily dressed women, being objectified to sell a “man’s product.”
Holy carp bateman(bateperson?)! They are giving away millions dollas to be objectified! Women are oppressed!
It's kinda like hearing a patriarchy-smashing feminist tell you that logic is patriarchal. Delicious irony.
PPS - It's refreshing to read someone make the case about inequality amongst women(and men) themselves.