I absolutely love Dennis Prager.

Real men = Howard Roark (note: He was only long winded when he needed to be...like when he was defending himself in court, otherwise, not so much.)

LetsShrug asked for proof: "Show proof that woman don't make as much as men, without factoring in working less hours for various reasons. I don't buy it."

Best-Paid Women in S and P 500 Settle for Less Remuneration
By Carol Hymowitz and Cécile Daurat Aug 12, 2013 11:01 PM CT
Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg News' Carol Hymowitz explores the findings of a Bloomberg study on the gender pay gap at S-and-P 500 companies, where female executives made an average of 18 percent less than their male counterparts.
Even the few women who’ve managed to advance to the C-suite don’t get equal pay.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13...

"On the almost-free market blog, OrgTheory, is a link about gender bias in science research hiring. Even women who head labs preferentially hire and pay men in excess of women with equal qualifications." (From OrgTheory here: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2012/09/2...)

Yet, if as you claim, schools are anti-boy how do you explain: "Over on Prof. Mark Perry’s blog, Carpe Diem (now with the American Enterprise Institute) are numbers about the huge gender gap [33 points] in the SATs..."
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sa...

As I said, if you argue numbers and populations, you will never find an answer.

Outlining the problem, however, my blog presents "She's Such a Geek!" (which was posted here in the Gulch)
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...
On The Gulch here under Books:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2b...

The same book as a launching point for a similar discussion on forced equality and forced inequality: You Only Have to be Better to be Equal:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...

(P. S. You did not define "real man.")

Yes... they are not treated like individual boys. That's the problem. Show proof that woman don't make as much as men, without factoring in working less hours for various reasons. I don't buy it. I know of no women who don't get paid the same as a man for doing the same job. It's another social justice dinner bell. I've seen the stopping of boys from being boys with my own eyes at school. It IS being done and as far as I can tell it's only getting worse and no one seems to notice. Was this some how presented as something other than anti individual?

This is very old and problematic. First of all, the entrance of women as teachers and administrators in schools goes back over 150 years and accelerated. For 100 years, K-12 schools have been places in, of, for, and by women. So, this is not a new problem -- if it is a problem.

Secondly, if girls do better in school than boys, then why do women not earn as much as men in a complex, industrial, post-industrial society? School teaches you to work in an office; and the office is another realm ruled by women. Yet, men dominate in business.

Third, the solution to that problem is best approached by the question of gender. Shrugger calls for "real men" but does not define that term. What is a "real man"? What is a "real woman"? I call the question, both of them, actually.

I submit that over the centuries and accelerating we have been getting away from gender. The keyboard liberated women by allowing them to do productive work that did not depend on muscles. Feminizing boys and masculinizing girls eventually leads to a world where people are perceived for something other than their bodies. That is rooted in civilization, i.e., in urbanity.

It is true that the bow-and-arrow allows a woman or a child to kill a man at a distance, but no hunter society actually has had that kind of equality since the Neanderthals - and they did not have the bow-and-arrow, anyway.

In cities, women inherited property despite traditional laws. Women were chosen mayor even in the Middle Ages. But, fair enough, that is when the first colleges taught boys to sit down, shut up, and pay attention for extended sessions.

Then, fifth or sixth, what are the alternatives? You can "treat boys like boys" en masse, but of course ignoring the individual. What about the boy who does not want go outside and play war games for recess? And what of the girl who does? Is that "treating a girl like a boy"?

The premise of the original post is riddled with epistemological errors analogous to the demands for "racial equality" that created Black History Month.

Rational-empirical pedagogy begins with the fact of individuality. You do not "treat boys like boys" or "girls like girls". You grant each child the right to discover who they are on their own terms.

(I will confess that I was happy that our child was a girl. It was a lot easier playing baseball with her than it would have been playing Barbies with my son.)