If you define it as women being small versions of men, then the definition needs adjusting.

Masculism takes a hit too: according to the studies discussed in the article, males are poor communicators.

If one applies the prefeminist educational philosophy, under which girls were taught, to boys now, it would be a good idea not to waste time teaching boys how to read or write except in the very specific areas necessary to read instruction manuals for activities involving machinery construction and repair or activities throwing balls or other projectiles, because they obviously haven't got the aptitude. Why bother to find a way to teach boys how to read and write on a higher, more conceptual and abstract level? They don't need to read about human behavior, or to appreciate poetry, let alone write any. Girls have the natural aptitude for this. Let's teach these skills in ways that favor their learning styles. If the occasional boy catches on, we can then celebrate him as a prodigy and congratulate ourselves on our methods, which will allow all girls to succeed and the outstanding boy to become a poster child for our "equal opportunity" system.

Of course, since so few boys will be in the communications fields, we can expect that they won't get many promotions in those fields. Men's health and social concerns won't be covered in company insurance and personnel policies. And the men's rest room, well, they don't need more than one per building. One of the ladies' rooms can be converted. How about the one near the mail room? No man will be working on the floor with upper management anyway.