I find it rather appalling that Mr. Harford would suggest what is effectively a tax on parents of boys for the privilege of allowing them to attend school with girls. This of course would mean only rich brats get to attend gender-integrated school, while the rest of the populace attends at boys-only institutions, the kind of places that tend to bully and scar certain of their numbers for life, and leave the rest even less able to socialize with women than they otherwise would. Why discriminate against boys institutionally? Don't they have enough problems? Their suicide rates are triple that of girls, their achievement less, and on and on.

That said, I agree with Mr. Harford that there aren't enough girls, even in the Western World where, by and large, we don't selectively abort their pregnancies, so let me make my own appalling suggestion. Ban helmets and other measures that reduce the attrition rate of boys that nature clearly intended when we evolved to give birth to boys almost 51% of the time. The boy who swallows too many marbles or skateboards in traffic doesn't get to grow up to have boys of his own. A little passive eugenics will go a long way to restoring the balance that civilized society craves.

I think the tax proposal was tongue in cheek. . . but could actually be justified if you can quantify the extra drain on resources boys cause. I'm not saying it would be fair, just saying it *could* be justified.

i find it funny that you say "why discriminate against boys institutionally? don't they have enough problems?". not saying that the male sex doesnt have its own set of problems. of course, they do. but rarely do you hear men admit that and the idea that some people are trying to push here this "poor boys" theory seems ludicrous. since when have women been ruling the planet? how many matriarchal societies do we have on the planet right now. or let's just look at america- have we had a woman president, do we have the majority on the supreme court, in congress? poor boys. sounds like the same argument that some people were trying to use before to support "white rights". you know, the feel sorry for me because i'm in the highest paid demographic campaign. not saying there's not something to what you're saying but there's no systemic boy bashing going on that i can see.. and the boy bashing i DO see is usually self inflicted stuff that men tend to feel proud of for some weird reason.

"since when have women been ruling the planet?"

Since right about now. I run a college recruiting program for a large technology company. I meet with college students all the time and I can tell you without a doubt that women will be running the country very, very soon. There are more women in college and they are brighter and harder working than the young men in general. We are in the initial stages of a huge social change right now and we have no idea what it's effects will be.

Women have been running the country a lot longer than now.

They are 52% of the population after all. They can use the idea of rape in order to get rid of a man who is in their way, and are the only group with more than half the population that has "minority" rights and privledges.

They also get to play victim at any time.They are the American Privledged Class.