Right, John, let's summarise what you wrote on Monday. Girls do not have willies, so their brains are half the size of yours. Ergo, "boys are genetically more disposed than girls to achieve academically". And we mustn't argue because, "whether feminists like it or not", that's how nature fixed it. And there was a time when everyone knew their place and left the boys to run things, as they felt entitled to do, what with their big, er, brains and stuff. Then some evil little snakes (female, only half a brain, sinister, devious, festooned with swastikas) slithered under the fence into this Eden and gerrymandered one "massive academic slippage" for the boys; i.e. the girls began to outperform the boys. Right?
And what's really tooth-grindingly irritating about this is that those girlies insist on growing into Women. And that's all we bloody need when Women Are The Problem. Right? For a start, there are far too many of them cluttering up the staff rooms, leaving boys with "less than a one-in-10 chance of being taught by a man".
And there is "clear evidence" that the presence of girlies in their classes cause boys to "do less well" and leaves them "in danger of the humiliation arising from constant comparison with girls" (as pointed out, you say, by "enlightened, decent women" like Doris Lessing).
In fact, the situation is so catastrophic that to produce little freaks like Arran Fernandez, the five-year-old who became the youngest person in Britain to pass a GCSE exam, parents "like Arran's" may have to teach their sons at home to escape the horrors of the feminised, man-hating education system. Right?
Oh, and about that macho culture that a lot of people blame for boys' troubles . . .? That's shame, you know, the shame of "a man raised by women". Really? Rich Zubaty says so, and John Waters thinks that Rich is brilliant.
Well, never mind that Arran was tutored for his exam at Ryde College, a place whose teaching methods provoked one education expert (male) into suggesting that it should be burned down.
Never mind that that risible "mine is bigger than yours" guff was last used in the 19th century to keep women out of university. (Their tiny brains were bound to implode from the amount of knowledge they would have to absorb.)
Never mind that in this country boys have a one-in-four chance of having a male teacher at primary level and an evens chance on having one at secondary.
Never mind that 40 years ago in Britain girls were outstripping boys in the 11-plus exam to the point where education administrators had to set a lower grammar school entry point for boys to ensure equal gender numbers. That's 40 years ago, John, when today's feminazis were still in pigtails and their male peers were busily modelling themselves on the almighty, absent, (male) breadwinner.
Never mind that one of the most comprehensive studies on co-education and gender equality in Europe, let alone in Ireland, concluded that the one thing boys do not lack is confidence. In fact, the vast majority rate themselves above average (Hannan and Smyth, ESRI, 1996. Why does no one read it before opening their beaks on this subject?).
By contrast, even controlling for social background and other factors, girls have a lower academic self image, lower sense of control (i.e. lower self-esteem) and significantly lower body image than boys regardless of the type of school. They also suffer higher levels of exam-related stress.
And one more thing: even as far back as the early 1980s girls were "significantly" more likely to trudge on in secondary school and complete the Leaving Cert than their male counterparts.
So, what does that tell you about girly determination? And what do you make of the fact that six years out of school, all else being equal, males are pulling in higher net weekly pay than females, or that in 2001 women academics hardly feature on university shortlists or that just 12 per cent of the national parliament is female, or that . . . but that's all too boring for a fellow with such a big brain, isn't it?
Never mind that Doris Lessing's front-page lament for "crumpled" little boys, "apologising for their existence", appeared in the right-on Guardian on a day when the picture balance in the news pages was men 24, women 2 (and both of them actresses).
Not like the Sun, which always gives women their due. Illustrating its enthusiastic report on Lessing's lament was a picture of New Man, Rod Stewart, representing "the plight of modern men", being tongue-lashed by that archfeminazi, Rachel Hunter, above the caption, "Humiliation".
Another woman, Melanie (21), from Watford, had ruthlessly commandeered page 3 ("Who's top of the bots!") and - wouldn't you know it, John - men had been brutally banished from page 1 to make way for three women no less - Helena Bonham Carter ("Fans go ape for Helen") and two women from Big Brother ("Stunning pair . . ."). Hats off to you, Doris. Is it any wonder that, as you say, little girls are so fat with complacency and conceit?
Look, John, we know that boys have problems. Women have more reason to know that (and to fear it) than anyone. They are our beloved sons, brothers, nephews, grandchildren, godchildren, and I'd vouch that we agonise even more about their cares and troubles than you do. Just stop blaming women for them.
Look to other sources. When I tried to get a gender breakdown on Irish primary certificate results for 40 years ago, I found that no such research had been done. So who is responsible for the modern emphasis on gender comparisons? Who are the editors and reporters? Not women.
And what is the truth behind boys' "underachievement" anyway? Could it be streaming? A disproportionate emphasis on sport? An old-fashioned dearth of self-discipline and hard work?
And if men show little taste for primary teaching, ask yourself why. I'd guess it's because it doesn't pay and also because 30 incontinent, hyperactive little brats can sure knock the hell out of a fellow, even one with a - crikey, look at the size of that . . .
SO look to your own, John. And while you're at it, take a look at something called the Writers' Zone project in an Essex school.
Started by teachers who recognised that the intellectual skills of many 11-year-old boys far exceeded their writing abilities, it entails nothing more confrontational than an intensive two-week course (which normally takes a year) in creative and analytical writing.
Initial observations from teachers and parents suggest significant improvement in writing, confidence and self-esteem and prompted the Guardian's education correspondent to comment: "It appears to have broken the mould of the lads culture which traditionally holds boys back". Now there's something worth campaigning for.
And yes, Doris, most wars are started by men, as the teacher said (thus causing the little boys to "crumple" and the little girls to look on, "fat with complacency and conceit").
If boys are a bit crumpled by that rather important piece of news, that's too bad. Who's fudging the truth now?