It’s all like this. I don’t even understand where the stuff in this page is coming from, but “coercion and violence of communist rule” is once again just thrown in there.
Also this book seems to really be looking down on the working class from my reading, although I suppose it tries to highlight some issues. Not to mention all the discourse about social capital or other types of capital, but never actual capital.
This also reads like a weird sort of celebration of neoliberalism as inevitable, but then again I am just so tired of reading stuff like this that I am probably not giving it much credit.
Book is called “masculinity, labor and neoliberalism”.
That page is the absolute purist distillation of brainworm essential oil I have ever seen. What in the entire actual fuck?
How tf were socialist men feminized by gombulism?
Same way commies gave the feds Havanna syndrome!Real macho men carve their own career on the free market with the power of their bootstraps. Globlulism however spoonfeeds these people their jobs, just handing the work straight to them without having them first fight their peers for it. Despicable.
I especially love how the author just threw the deaths and misery that resulted from the fall of the Soviet Union in there as some inevitable force of nature type event with zero analyzes of why, by who and to the benefit of who it actually happened. I am so annoyed with the ever present divorce of the historical analysis of the harms of capital and reality from all academic text.
Reading this article onward it does have some good stuff in it too, once it actually gets to looking at the garage culture and the men who participate in it. But it also credits neoliberalism as giving people some alternate path to agency, true Giddens brainworms.
I also hate how hard a time the author still has in giving credit to the collectivist form of human activity that is described.
And the jargon is just never-ending. The last two pages of this I was not even able to really understand, and afaik I understand things just fine.
Yeah hi, I’d like a large side of feminised men under communism please, youre menus very cluttered i only got that far, can you recommend anything else?
The bros (and the people who has to endure them) were all materially better during ebil gommunism, which made the bros gay, but it was also patriarcal, and made the wamen unhappy, despite wamen doing far better than after gommunism was killed.
So when the ebil patriarcal gommunism dieded, all the bros stopped being gay and emasculated, but also longed for patriarchy which was no more cuz gommunism ded, so they turned into reactionary dickheads and started posting on 4chan and jacking off to tradcath-gf-wojacks
Peak western intellectualism
This could have been the abstract.
Yeah, this kinda jargonic shit is pretty typical for your average liberal arts text. I’d love to read the studies they are citing, cause I will guarantee that there is a lot of editorializing going on here. Notice how the ‘Men’s coping… authoritarian communist rule’ is completely uncited. The sections before and after are cited, but that part is stuck in there to make it look like it’s supported, but I would make a safe bet that neither study actually says that because if they did, they would quote the study’s author directly. Also notice how that trend continues through the page.
I had this kind of problem all the time when I did my liberal arts degree and my grade would suffer for it depending on the professor. Never enough to get a ‘C’, but I am legitimately getting better grades in my engineering classes now because I don’t have to deal with this level of interpretative, editorialized and adhoc bullshit. Shit’s tough, especially if you actually take the science seriously, unlike a lot of these authors.
Yeah, this is a course in gender studies I am doing as a minor. Still has nothing on the course I did on the feminist revolution in Iran where we got a real life diaspora Iranian citing radio free europe links to us as study material.
Truly the most unbiased academic learning.
