> But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. The poi

> But if you don't do something to boost the "under" group, they're going to continue to be the under group, the group without adequate social capital. The point of the article is that women are no longer the "under" group. In the 80s and 90s, sure - the ratio of college graduates was something like 60:40 men to women, but now, it's the reverse. We should have started gradually taking the thumb off the scale as they approached parity, and we definitely should start taking the thumb off the scale now that the ratio is at least as lop-sided in favor of women as it was in the past for men. Of course, that's a bit overly-simplistic, as there are certainly fields where we should probably maintain advocacy programs for women (e.g., CS), but perhaps there's a need to start up advocacy programs for men in other fields to balance things out.