It's been a while since I had the opportunity to slap astralounge around, so if this response seems especially evil, please bear in mind that I'm making up for lost time.

I'll quote directly and go from there:

This is so problematic on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

But, being a good feminist, I'm sure you won't let that slow you down.

Oh my god! Women are becoming more educated than men! This must mean (pick one):

1) Women will now have to "settle" for less than they deserve, because they should never, never marry below their own class/education level, and god FORBID they not want to marry at all!

Hello, and welcome to Astralounge's slippery slope, where our darling little feminist assumes that statement A actually means statement M, which will lead inexorably to conclusion Z.

After reading through the article twice, I can't find where the author says that women shouldn't marry below their class/education level, or that they should have to get married at all. The only implication made in the article is that women probably want a mate who is viable and comparable to them in an intellectual and economic sense.

Astralounge, I fear that you're letting your predilection for slumming color your impressions of what the rest of society appears to want... which is someone who is at least equal to them.

2) Men are stupid, slovenly, and lazy. Or, women are intelligent, controlling, and emasculating.

Ah yes. This was in the third paragraph of the article. Wait, no it wasn't. It was...

Um, it looks like this wasn't in the article at all. The article just said that there are more women with degrees than men.

Of course, it fits nicely into the feminist agenda to claim that the article makes the implication that men are stupid, slovenly and lazy... because from there it's possible to claim that the actual underlying implication is that women make men appear stupid, slovenly and lazy by being manipulative, emasculating or threateningly intelligent.

I'll give you this Astralounge... you're critique of this article is not lazy. You obviously worked very, very hard at it.

3) Women need to get back in the kitchens where they belong. Damn those equal opportunity measures. See, aren't we lucky the ERA didn't pass? This will upset the fabric of society!

The whole "women should get back in the kitchens" portion of the article in question is, indeed, tremendously difficult to justify and defend.

Or, rather, it would be... if it was actually in the article.

4) Women might have better educations, but they're probably still getting paid less.

Astralounge, I'm dismayed. This was actually paraphrased from the article itself, and it does qualify as a problem. Not only that, but you didn't put non-existent words in the author's mouth.

I'm afraid you're slipping dangerously close to reality here. Watch your step.

5) Women are, on average, ending up better educated than men. Big fucking whoop.

Huzzah for astralounge. Big fucking whoop indeed. It's nice to finally see some realism on the subject.

Too bad that your easy dismissal of inconsequential differences between the social status of men and women won't extend to the next time you hear about a situation that places women on the marginally losing end of the status quo.

THEN we'll see the righteous indignation again.