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".
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.