The lack of success for boys in school is well documented and it's a big problem.  That article, by the way, is pretty fluffy and glosses over a lot of things.  For one thing, the structure of most schools heavily benefits girls.  Some schools have found success in changing teaching methods.  This really needs to be addressed.

I've seen articles that say that boys do just find in terms of actually learning, but many schools grade in ways that have to do more with work.

I've actually run head first into that myself.  I failed 12th grade world history even though I had the best test average in the class.  Meanwhile, you had people with lower test scores, who weren't actually learning the material as well, pulling up their grades because they did all the extra crap the teacher wanted.

As long as school rewards grades first and learning second, this is going to be the result.

Bullshit.  That's pretend.  It's like saying Communists are all about treating everyone fairly.  In theory?  Maybe (though early feminist writings make me doubt that).  In practice?  China and North Korea say otherwise.  "Feminist issues" are female only.

your statement fails to address the fact that:

1- there are several types of feminism

2- feminism has several ridiculous claims, like that being such a thing as pathriarchy that actively tries to keep women down

3- egalitarianism

4- if you want a society without different classes of people, you are a communist. (does it apply as well or it's just for feminism?)

I could go on, but I think this should suffice 

If that were the case, they would just be Equal Rights Activists. Feminism has the very root word of female in it; it's not about equal rights, it's about making sure women don't have fewer rights. 

Nope, that makes you an Equal Rights Activist. Feminism (root "fem" = female) is a movement to ensure women don't have fewer rights than men. If they have more rights on a certain matter, it's a non-issue to them. Such as how most state laws unconstitutionally favor the mother for custody in divorce. For a mother to get full custody, she need only have the father fail a drug test. For the father to have full custody, the mother needs to be clinically diagnosed as unfit, have a police record, AND currently be incarcerated. 

You dont see feminists tackling that issue. 

Because there's nothing wrong with it in their eyes. 

No, what is pretend is saying feminists are only about woman>men. Sure, there are some manhaters and feminazis who are self-proclaimed feminists (even though they aren't), but they are both a) in the minority (by far) and b) by definition not feminists. If you want to include them as feminists because they say they are, okay then, but then you have to keep in mind that they are a tiny minority of feminists. Communism is about a classless society with means of production and transport of products owned by everyone. First of all, China isn't even communist, they only pretend to be (funnily enough, like the feminazis pretend to be feminists), all their actions show that China is capitalistic as fuck. The class mentality is stronger in China than nearly any nation out there, and the means of production and transport are privatively owned. They are about as communistic as the US. North Korea is also not a communist state, but I'm to lazy to go into detail here either. Both countries are riddled with corruption, so whatever ideology they have are irrelevant. The authoritarian regimes are what causes the problems, not their ideology.

1. Okay, if you want to include the radical minority of feminazis together with normal feminists, fine. But then acknowledge that they are in a small minority. Saying "Feminism isn't about equality, it's only about women>men" is about as errouneous as saying "Islam isn't about their religious beliefs, it's only about killing people who oppose them". Sure, there exist Islamist terror organisations, but they are in the vast minority. 

2. "Feminism has several ridiculous claims" - how can feminism "have" anything? Some feminists have several ridiculous claims, but again, they are in the minority.

3. Egalitarianism and feminism stands for much of the same, except egalitarianism is a broader reaching thing, also demanding equality for all economic backgrounds, social classes, etc. It is related to communism and socialism in that regard.

4. Communist want a classless society and state owned (or publicly owned, you don't necessarily need a state there) means of production and transport of goods. If you want those, yes, you are a communist.

The most interesting thing about that article was that it spent little time on the findings that indicate boys are get lower grades for the same result. That's kind of important. Things like that are very discouraging for either sex.

The other thing is that it fails to talk about the findings that males "catch up" to females eventually, which points to the idea of differing developmental cycles. That makes grading through high school less meaningful and probably has a lot to do with boys getting discouraged that they're "behind in class" and dropping out or giving up.

That's my entire point.  The reality is all that matters.  I don't care about the fake veneer, I care about the truth.  Feminist groups and organizations only care about women's issues.  I don't think you can argue that.

I once read an article by an older feminist activist who said that when she talked about doing things to help boys in school, the response from her peers was almost total apathy.  I think that says it all.

1- why should i acknowledge those are a minority? what studies do you have to back that claim up? I said there are different types of feminism and that by itself indicates there's no 1 minority, there might be plenty of minorities that in the end could make up quite the majority. I can tell you though that the most prominent and vocal feminists nowadays are what you.

Maybe check the simple wiki on feminism and you'll see how many different types there are. Here ya go, hope it helps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies

(let's not get started on islam or religion comparisons, it would take us way off topic)

2- how can feminism have anything? there's such a thing as a 'feminist theory'. Again wiki is your friend, but just to give an example:

"Themes explored in feminism include discrimination, objectification (especially sexual objectification), oppression, patriarchy,^[3][4] stereotyping, art history^[5] andcontemporary art,^[6][7] and aesthetics."

on pathriarchy, again from the standpoint of feminist theory:

"Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women." " Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations."

3- if a person really is for equality of opportunity regardless of gender, they should simply call themselves egalitarian. if they decide to consciously call themselves feminists, then they are saying something more than so called 'equality between genders'.

4- you just proved my point. the same way you can't say 'if you're in favour of equality for genders, you're a feminist', you also can't say 'if you're in favor of equality and no social classes dividing the people, you are a communist'

both terms include a lot more than that 1 definition, so yes, of course it's insane to say someone is a feminist or communist just because they may agree with one of the tenants of both beliefs

Ah, 2/3! Where I was it was basically 40 girls for each guy

Didn't see me complainin

The reality is that most feminists stand for equal rights. Well, it's either that, or there aren't many feminists on this planet. You don't have to be an "activist" to be a feminist. Activists are more likely to have more radical meanings, because those that don't have radical opinions aren't likely to bother enough to go and and protest or whatever. The feminists I know are just completely normal people who align politically with the statement "men and women should have equal rights and opportunities". Of course, that is anecdotal, but using feminist activist as a representative of the general feminist mindset is erroneous. You don't have to be a femen member to be a feminist.

I do agree however, that feminazis are a problem, both because of their opinions that are out of whack, and also because they detract from feminism by producing "feministhate", just like what has been displayed in this thread, of people who have this misguided view that feminism is only about women>men.