They aren't obsolete. The mere notion of this is laughable to anyone spending a bit of time looking around.
What happened was the standards cranking up to 11 and either the rewards aren't visible, or they simply aren't there. In addition, there's far more entertainment available and children are no longer seen as an automatic achievement. Some might even say, having kids is actively discouraged in the upper circles.
>Feminist writer Susan Faludi has pointed out that many men are "clinging to a phantom status." She's right, of course.
Based on what? I don't necessarily see men clinging onto a "phantom status" as much as their (potential) lover, family, friends and business network not giving a hoot unless their status is deemed great. Men are still primarily judged on status, not the other way around.
>He is not the only one. A common thread running through many of the challenges facing men is the culture shock of women's economic independence.
The article really misses nuance on this whole "economic independence" thing. Yes, women got "more economically independent". No, they can't just start families on their own and get by. In many countries, they can't even get a decent home (dual income households say hello). Check the demands of typical college-educated women, and then compare with the available pool of men. Now compare to the current education system, the way society works and what is happening with starting wages. There simply aren't enough men for all those women, and it's evident most women aren't willing to drop their standards yet. Meanwhile, men aren't willing to "step up", as popular lingo would like to claim.
The author correctly identifies so many things, only to come to the most safe conclusion. The same conclusion which has yet to be proven correct.