It didn't take too long for a Journo to overtly revert back to the "Women Always Have It Worse" talking point

This opinion article was just published in The Atlantic by a feminist journalist who is also responsible for erudite and Pulitzer-deserving works such as "The Bots That Women Use in a World of Unsatisfying Men," "The Existential Terror of Monogamy" and "First Came Tea. Then Came the Male Rage." The common denominator behind all of these articles (yes, even the "anti-monogamy" one) is a form of virulent yet unadulterated feminism which declares men of the current generations to be sleazy, evil, and unfit for a long-term romantic relationship. Of course, this is the logical conclusion of belief in "patriarchy theory" which is the cornerstone of feminist thought.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the latest article:

Hardship shouldn’t be a competition. Well-being is not a zero-sum game for men and women, Sarah C. Narendorf, a social-work professor at NYU, told me; everyone would benefit from letting go of strict, traditionalist ideas about masculinity. 

I agree that it should not be a competition. Is she going to take this part of the article seriously though? Or will the journo try her best to contradict the spirit of this statement by doing the opposite - by turning hardship into a competition?

What young women are going through, then, is an identity crisis. It’s also a mental-health crisis. But it’s not typically recognized as any kind of crisis at all, perhaps because it’s a quieter one: This population, overall, may not be happy, but it’s a high-functioning one and therefore easier to ignore. Loe trained as a medical sociologist, and she recalled a saying: Men die quicker, but women are sicker. Women are more likely to endure many chronic illnesses and to soldier on with their pain unnoticed. Or maybe their turmoil isn’t all that quiet. Perhaps American society is simply more tolerant of women suffering because they always have.

Ah "American society" oppressing the Real Victims - the Have It Worses^TM - and not the evil, trump-voting, ultra-MAGA (debunked) gen Z men. Wouldn't someone think of the poor Have It Worses^TM who may be overrepresented in academia but have to pay back the loans once they graduate??? That's one of the talking points mentioned in the article; that women hold 2/3 of student loans leading us to believe that women actually have it worse in education. I cannot believe for a moment that the journo wrote that sentence without exploding in laughter. These people live in Opposite World.

While the journo did talk about student loans and how they are oppressing women, the journo did not talk about gender-based scholarships and how there seems to be much fewer of them offered to male students, even in disciplines where men are underrepresented. The journo mentioned Richard Reeves but only his idea to "redshirt the boys" (ie. delay kindergarten) or to tell young men to go to feminized fields, and not his related idea to offer financial aid for men in certain HEAL fields. The effects of "redshirting" are also unclear and possibly harmful. It seems that the journo is dead set on finding a simple "silver bullet" (more of a band-aid, really) solution to men's issues so that she can avoid admitting that young women do not have it worse.

But let me tell you what I think a real "Identity Crisis" looks like. Many American men - tens of THOUSANDS of American men per year (not just the underclass) overdosing to death on opioids or taking their own life is what a deadly, imminent identity crisis looks like. The feminist journo even mentioned the "deaths of despair" before talking about "academic pressure" and dumping feminist talking points to make it seem like women still have it worse even when the life expectancy graph shows commonality between low-income women and middle-class men (while low-income men are done for lmao). This is textbook apex fallacy and a sad sad excuse for an opinion article. The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg should bow his head in shame for greenlighting an obviously misandrist and one-sided article with the clear objective of extinguishing the men's rights movement rather than addressing its concerns in an honest and ethical manner.