Here's the link to get you started. There's also this "story" which opens with a patriarchy quip, but this post is about the first link.

This article is worth a read; not for its deep insights into what small town Mississippi Delta life is like for men, the poor that the American education system has failed, or their struggle to survive in a world that has already left them behind thanks to technology and bottom lines.

It also shows how a once reputable source like The Economist is turning into click-bait pseudo-intellectual bullshit found on huffpo. There really isn't any economical talk or discussion on how this trend has affected economies of the societies in which this phenomenon is happening; there really isn't any deep insight gained from reading the article either. There is no author listed, and I would wager real money that it was written by a stupid jealous woman.

No, this article essay is so disconnected from the realities these men face it starts with a quote from

Kimberly, a receptionist in Tallulah, [that] thinks the local men are lazy. “They don’t do nothin’,” she complains. This is not strictly true. Until recently, some of them organised dog fights in a disused school building.

This is how the article starts, and this is how it continues to read. The poor Men of the Mississippi Delta are retarded dog fighters who can't fill out 8th grade paperwork to be truck drivers.

But somehow, all of these poor ape-men manage to keep the women oppressed; good job fellas, keep up the good work! The whole article is littered with lines like this:

Tallulah may be an extreme example, but it is part of a story playing out across America and much of the rest of the rich world. In almost all societies a lot of men enjoy unwarranted advantages simply because of their sex. Much has been done over the past 50 years to put this injustice right; quite a bit still remains to be done.

Despite the men of Tallulah being impoverished luddites, they're still privileged because they're men. The author manages to juxtapose extreme poverty and privilege all with in the SJW trigger word 'injustice'.

The rest of the article follows the rhetorical facts of how feminism has degraded the family unit particularly for the poor and uneducated and placed that in a context of how men have failed to adapt.

The article prattles on about how Sweden has adapted so well, then about faces and says the men there are miserable.

It finishes off with how men have adapted currently exist without making any point; leaving the blame squarely on the men's failure to adapt and not the feminism that had taken over the system to which Western society is beholden.

Commenter Ohio wrote:

Boomers made a deal: Women would get more authority, responsibility, and opportunity, and in return men didn't have to do anything but be a little more respectful. In fact their responsibilities shrunk, as fewer became single bread-winners. Sure enough, the world is now full of mature, responsible, women, and irresponsible boy-men. There's little incentive for men to behave better. A man's chances of heading a family are not high, and his wife will dominate that family and cast him out of it at her pleasure. I know that sounds misogynistic, but it is a reflection of where culture and family law now place men and women in the family.

This is the most insight that had been said in the entire article.