> Makes post criticizing writing quality of an author.

> Doesn't even write at a high school level of competency.

Bait harder.

> argues a society that has half of its population thriving and the other half struggling is a broken and nonfunctional society.

To suggest women are "thriving" because they are catching up in equal representation is complete nonsense. Just because engineering fields went from 10:1 M:F to 4:1 doesn't mean they are thriving. Just because parts of the medical field has a higher representation of women doesn't mean they are thriving.

> To level the playing field, Reeves suggests starting boys a year or two later in Pre-K to allow their brains to mature and catch up to girls.

That doesn't even make sense. What they're suggesting doesn't "level" the playing field nor let boys "catch up". It's basically a facade to show academic equivalency even though female students would still be outperforming relevant to their age group throughout the entirety of education. We don't need to create a fake distribution looking even; if girls outperform boys in grade school on average, so be it. Evaluate case-by-case and if the bottom nth % of the class needs remedial education, and happens to be boys, so be it.