When feminist scholars cite a “gendered injustice,” it was once a safe bet that they would be referring to inequities disfavoring girls or women. No longer. The feminist philosopher Cordelia Fine, for example, now uses the term to describe the wide gaps in U.S. education where, as a group, boys and men are lagging behind their female peers (Fine, 2023).

To say that the male–female education differences amount to an injustice is a strong claim, and one that can safely be left to scholars of justice like Fine. But it is clear that these gaps are at the very least a serious problem which demands a stronger response from policymakers (Reeves, 2022a). In what follows, I:

• Describe some of the gender gaps in educational outcomes in the U.S.
• Distinguish between three different policy approaches to tackling them: gender-neutral, gender-sensitive or gender-based policies.
• Describe examples of policies in each of the three categories.
• Propose and defend both gender-sensitive and gender-based policies to help boys and men.

中文翻译：

---

帮助男孩和男性接受教育的案例

当女权主义学者引用“性别不公正”时，曾经可以肯定他们指的是不利于女孩或妇女的不平等。不再。例如，女权主义哲学家 Cordelia Fine 现在用这个术语来描述美国教育中的巨大差距，作为一个群体，男孩和男性落后于女性同龄人（Fine，2023）。

说男女教育差异构成不公正是一个强有力的主张，并且可以安全地将这一主张留给像法恩这样的正义学者。但很明显，这些差距至少是一个严重的问题，需要政策制定者采取更强有力的应对措施（Reeves，2022a）。接下来，我：

• 描述美国教育成果中的一些性别差距
• 区分三种不同的政策方法来解决这些问题：性别中立、性别敏感或基于性别的政策。
• 描述这三个类别中每一个类别的政策示例。
• 提出并捍卫性别敏感和基于性别的政策，以帮助男孩和男子。