It's not just the journalists who tend to be anti-male. The psychological and sociological establishments have been subtly anti-male for a long time.
An example of how this anti-male bias manifests is in the very language used in academic work on men. So often there is talk about "toxic masculinity" when discussing boys and men, and discussions of how male traits are problematic - described as 'aggressive' and 'uncooperative' - while female traits are almost universally described in more positive terms.
Of course both genders exhibit destructive behavior, but women do not have to suffer the same harsh treatment in the academic literature as men.
We could speculate on the reasons for this bias, but I believe it can be tied to the overall anti-male climate, which in itself is an overreaction by the rest of society - but the intellectuals in particular - to the unequal treatment of women for most of history.
More speculatively, I believe the high numbers of women and effeminate men in academia, especially the social sciences, have biased the field.
An example of how this anti-male bias manifests is in the very language used in academic work on men. So often there is talk about "toxic masculinity" when discussing boys and men, and discussions of how male traits are problematic - described as 'aggressive' and 'uncooperative' - while female traits are almost universally described in more positive terms.
Of course both genders exhibit destructive behavior, but women do not have to suffer the same harsh treatment in the academic literature as men.
We could speculate on the reasons for this bias, but I believe it can be tied to the overall anti-male climate, which in itself is an overreaction by the rest of society - but the intellectuals in particular - to the unequal treatment of women for most of history.
More speculatively, I believe the high numbers of women and effeminate men in academia, especially the social sciences, have biased the field.