Having read the article, I felt like the writing severely lacked in clarity & posed the problem as ultimately men's fault. The numerous quotes appealing to what I can only read as "hot takes" produced by some kind of authority only reinforce this:
> Younger men are largely responsible for rising rates of mass shootings, a trend some researchers link to their growing social isolation.
Why bring up this random correlation if not to assign blame by association? Already very hard to give this piece benefit of the doubt it probably deserves.
> “Women don’t need to be in long-term relationships. They don’t need to be married. They’d rather go to brunch with friends than have a horrible date,”
Casually throwing "horrible date" there; from my experience men are just as likely to prefer a friendly occasion to a "horrible date." In this context, what's really implied is that young men are seen by young women as horrible so the detachment effects is men's, if anybody's fault; quite an over-reaching argument.
> “Today in America, women expect more from men,” Levant said, “and unfortunately, so many men don’t have more to give.”
What is the point, again?
> “Men are less naturally relational than women,” said Richard Reeves, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
Poorly worded and what's the point, anyway? Natural presupposition wouldn't happen to explain the observed effects now would it?
> “Women form friendships with each other that are emotionally intimate, whereas men do not,” Levant said
Perhaps when asked men wouldn't describe their relationships as "emotionally intimate" and I wouldn't expect my friends to be crying and exposing themselves in a outwards way by default but it doesn't mean that the relationships we have do not lend to the emotional component, reward emotional support and sincerity.