Not sure if this is trolling or if this is serious. It's certainly not written like any kind of reasonable academic study or paper on the subject. I got to this and just had to laugh about the lack of data.

"It’s common to see men abandoning their families because they can’t handle the responsibilities of providing and parenting."

Because what they fail to see is that child outcomes for single parent men are better than child outcomes for single parent women. So when you're measuring outcomes who can't handle the responsibility?

It also doesn't factor in that women are the only people who can choose to abandon their responsibility before that responsibility becomes realized as a responsibility. I bet if you factored in those numbers, which people don't like to do, you would find the female abandonment rate much higher.

Along these same lines they also fail at acknowledging the absolute epidemic level of men paying for children that aren't theirs. Especially in these situations where the parents aren't together.

Maybe this was posted for rage bait or something but it is so comically silly and childish and poorly written that who would get angry at the nonsense.

Exhibit A: a prime example of gender bigotry.

So, so much of this is either wholesale mis-application of examples that transfer badly if at all, or outright falsehoods.

> Many men join the military specifically because they crave following orders; they want to be able to ditch accountability because they were “just doing their job.”

This is the horrifically biased example that made me stop in my tracks.

Take any thoroughly socialist country that generously supports its citizenry, and look at their military: it’s struggling to attract members. And a good chunk of applicants are women as well.

Now take a look at America, and ask applicants why they are joining. The vast majority of entry-level recruits going into basic training cite economic and educational concerns. The enhanced and specialized training have more focused recruits, yes. They have gone into specializations such as marines or rangers because they want to be there; because those disciplines provide challenges and brotherhood and a sense of purpose that has been eviscerated out of modern life through pervasive misandry.

But the masses of initial applicants? They’re trying to escape poverty and economic inequality, because no woman will look twice at a poor man. Most will cite the GI bill and its free post-secondary education as their primary reasoning. It’s why army recruitment is always within the poorest communities in America.

At this point, I am sorely tempted to treat this entire article like the bullshit that is seeping out of its woodwork. It stinks of anti-male gender bigotry something bad.