And no, I'm not arguing against the privileges of men. I'm criticizing the use of that word, in comparison to the rest of the article, as a covert gendered judgment. Just because men continue to have a "privilege" doesn't mean they will continue to want that privilege. When there's no incentive, why exactly would a man or a woman want the responsibilities that come with a high-flying career, dating, marriage, having a family, home ownership, retirement planning, et cetera et cetera? What this journalist sees as "perplexing" is hardly inexplicable.

Yes, those challenges indeed apply to most if not all people. Just because other people have things worse than others doesn't mean that one privileged group's behavior can't be explained by their own disenfranchisement. The fact that nobody can answer the question I've repeatedly asked demonstrates my point; the benefits of the man's privilege is in decline, hence men aren't going to participate in the economy the same way they used to. Why is it that you are redirecting the discussion to those(unnamed) with relatively worse privation?