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?
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.