Fair point. Although I think the discussion of why fewer men go to college now is a vague shadow of a bigger discussion. To draw the lines at men vs. women seems at best like a distraction
Perhaps WSJ might intend it as a distraction (though that's being generous).
It is still a question worth asking not with the WSJ article's framing but as materialists to understand the how the conditions and structures we are living in have changed.
Yet skyrocketing education costs have made college more risky today than for past generations, potentially saddling graduates in lower-paying careers—as well as those who drop out—with student loans they can’t repay.
[...]
Men in interviews around the U.S. said they quit school or didn’t enroll because they didn’t see enough value in a college degree for all the effort and expense required to earn one. Many said they wanted to make money after high school.
I agree. They were pretty clearly trying to pin the blame on "reverse oppression" because it's the WSJ and they suck. But they at least devoted a couple sentences to the elephant in the room.
I skimmed the article. No mention of how college frequently requires with a $60,000+ non-dischargeable loan and how that price gets higher every year.
Just feels like they’re trying to answer a question without thinking about material circumstances very deeply.
The same material conditions apply to women though
Fair point. Although I think the discussion of why fewer men go to college now is a vague shadow of a bigger discussion. To draw the lines at men vs. women seems at best like a distraction
Perhaps WSJ might intend it as a distraction (though that's being generous).
It is still a question worth asking not with the WSJ article's framing but as materialists to understand the how the conditions and structures we are living in have changed.
deleted by creator
Men have more opportunities with a high school diploma than women do
I feel like more of the article should have talked about that.
I agree. They were pretty clearly trying to pin the blame on "reverse oppression" because it's the WSJ and they suck. But they at least devoted a couple sentences to the elephant in the room.