Another bitter and twisted feminist speaks.
On the Gaussian distribution of linguistics, I'll accept that women are better at languages for the most part, because in the cave they had to deceive men out of food and a living, using only their mouth, guile, and their vagina. It therefore follows that they had to be good at lying by ommission and/or ambiguity.
Similarly, in order to get sex in the post stoneage world, men had to build things that didn't fall down. I drove to Surrey and back this morning, a long way. On the way I traversed hundreds of bridges, and was over flown by devices of such aerial cunning that Newton couldn't have forseen them. There were no women involved in any of this construction, other than perhaps choosing what colour it will be. Similarly, we can count on one hand the number of female inventors who've invented things men wanted, but didn't have. (I exclude things like the bra, if men had wanted women wearing bras I'm sure we'd have invented them.)
Were I a great linguist, I would no doubt despair at men's inability to put their verbal case forward. I'm not however, I'm merely above average at logical analysis, and I can say from looking around at those I consider exceptional, there's one woman for every dozen men at the higher levels, and at the very top there's simply no women at all, I've been in meetings where it was clear the highest performing women there were so out of their depth they would have been more useful as tea ladies. I'm sure there are women all over who've been in literary meetings where the same is true in reverse.
I don't deny, or even complain, that the education system has been tinkered with, to stop boys getting too far ahead of girls before they've even started, because for all sorts of reasons poverty is reduced when women work. (I think the government terminology is "It's better women pay for 20% of their keep than none at all.") however, to deny that boys losing out to girls at maths is for anything other than
a. a politicised education system leading to
i. Boys being positively held back by the state education mechanism,
ii. Exams being modfied so girls do well at them,
then they're either lying or misguided.
I personally subscribe to a couple of personal beliefs, which is that firstly, as a class women sit closer to the norm, there are more male geniuses and more male morons. The examples I gave above are merely the end points, there's a huge, vast even number of people in the middle for whom sex is irrelevant.
Secondly, that women are more predisposed to work hard just to be liked by their teacher. I'm sure that if young teachers gave a blowjob to the highest achieving boy, (or just tortured the weakest,) then boys would beat girls hands down.
Alas, this isn't wanted politically, if girls don't have continual good feedback, they fall on their backs with their legs in the air, and cause a drain on the state. If boys fail, well, then they're fodder for enemy cannons, which is something we need right now.
This is why we've invented hundreds of new professions, centred around not doing very much other than talking (usually complaining,) we've got to employ all these girls with women's studies degrees somewhere.
As for equality and equality laws, I'm all for them. Some men complain that equality laws always seem to favour women. Of course they do, it's because women can't compete with men in the most fields, who else are the laws going to support? The strong? Laws by their very nature are designed to protect the weak, but in order to stay elected, the government has to frame them in the context that everyone could benefit from them, even when clearly only one party ever will.