When she talks about the "war against boys", she's talking about the school system. Schools overmedicate and overpunish boys. The system drives boys out of school and as a result, only 40% of college students are male. If an inequality like this went the other way, there would be national outrage.

But it's not exactly a "conservative" issue. Plenty of liberals have written about it too:

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/stop-penal...

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32858/drugging-of-the...

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2015/...

"Christina Hoff Sommers does not agree with my positions on issues therefore is biased and cannot be trusted, compared to people who do agree with my positions on issues, who are not biased and can be trusted."

"a noticeable bias/axe to grind since she's pretty anti-feminism and considers there to be a "war against boys". Also she works for the AEI which is a conservative think tank."

This strikes me as "poisoning the well."

There is a war against boys. We medicated an entire generation with psychotropic drugs to make them more passive.

The phrase strikes me as hyperbolic, but I agree there is a real problem underlying it.

My point was that people should base their opinions on CHS' claims on her evidence and arguments, rather than who she associates with.

What would you call it then?

For me personally, I would try to talk about the specific issues and describe them, as you did in the second part of your comment. I understand there is a definitely place for using a simple phrase to characterize a larger pattern of inequality. Even using dramatic, colorful phrases which capture the imagination also have their place in the world.

Edit: I'm not trying to change your approach, I'm just being blunt about my opinions. I appreciate your open mindedness.

But the problem is systemic and it needs to be named directly. Skirting around the edges of the problem, trying to be indirect, will not be effective.

>considers there to be a "war against boys"

How is there not? Literally every modern school system favors activities that disproportionally disadvantage young boys. Boys and young men are dropping out of school at a far larger rate than women, and literally nobody cares. It's a travesty.

Agree. When you perform an online search for articles on the "wage gap myth," the majority of the articles seem traceable back to her.

It's because even though there is no data to support the wage gap, it's very unpopular to question it. Christina Hoff Summers is a pioneer in the field of gender equality and has paid a huge price by actually investigating these issues. It's a risky position to take in today's political climate so not many have followed her footsteps.

>there is no data to support the wage gap

This is false.

https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-a...

>it's very unpopular to question it.

Also false, it's very popular (and almost cliché) to dismiss it.

>Christina Hoff Summers... has paid a huge price by actually investigating these issues.

And what price would that be? She seems extremely successful.

http://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/

From your link:

"$3.27 less per hour than men. The median hourly wage is $15.67 for women and $18.94 for men.

The gender wage gap is a measure of what women are paid relative to men. It is commonly calculated by dividing women’s wages by men’s wages, and this ratio is often expressed as a percent, or in dollar terms. This tells us how much a woman is paid for each dollar paid to a man. This gender pay ratio is often measured for year-round, full-time workers and compares the annual wages (of hourly wage and salaried workers) of the median (“typical”) man with that of the median (“typical”) woman; measured this way, the current gender pay ratio is 0.796, or, expressed as a percent, it is 79.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). In other words, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes about 80 cents."

It's meaningless to compare different positions pay to each other. "Typical" men vs "typical" women doesn't tell us anything about potential discrimination.

Oh, FFS, c'mon.

There's over 12,800 words in the article and 67 citations. It includes sections such as "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?", "How do education and job and occupational characteristics affect the gender wage gap?", "Does a woman’s race, age, or pay level affect the gender gap she experiences?", and "What role do 'unobservables' like discrimination and productivity play in the wage gap?" yet you choose to ignore all of it and argue against something from the introduction that's expanded upon further down.

You're arguing on bad faith here.

It's an argument against adjusted wage gap calculations or comparing salaries in the same roles. I fundamentally object to the very premise.

> You're arguing on bad faith here.

No, I just disagree with you.

How am I arguing in bad faith? He responded to my comment with link to a far left think tank that uses an alternate definition of wage gap than what were talking about.

> "Women earn less than men at every wage level"

It's utterly useless to compare wage levels across different roles. I read the article, I strongly disagree with it.

Do you really think comparing the pay of people in different roles is useful? It's apples and oranges. I don't expect a nurse and an engineer to make the same amount of money. This is my argument and it's not in bad faith.

No, he responded with a 12,000 word article with over 60 references. Your reply was nitpicking a single thing that you feel is something important. Its not, the discussion is wider and deeper than that. By the way your point is dealt with in the article itself. The one you definitely read

What about citing some arguments from the article, so not everyone has to read 12000 words and wade throuh 60 references. It would be easier for everyone to check the validity of the argument then.

There has not been any counterpoint to original disputing of the citation.