I've been a subscriber to the Economist for a few years, actually, so I was surprised to see the retards on CuckTears take a swipe at a reputable, centrist publication. If anything, the Economist's editorial team has consistently been socially liberal.
What the Economist dared to say is that young individuals are having less sex for economic, technological, and social reasons. Changes in certain variables -- such as housing costs and urbanization, the importance of the tertiary (service) sector, the cost of higher education, the percentage of women with a bachelor's degree, and the prevalence of IVF technology -- incentivize young individuals to prioritize their careers over other facets of life.
Not once did the Economist say, "Femoids bad!" or conclude with "This is why holes need to stay in the kitchen!", but that didn't prevent the challenged individuals on IT from suffering a meltdown.
I highly recommend a subscription to the Economist -- whether you're an incel, a CuckTears member*, or a bored visitor. You might not fully agree with what their writers say, but it's packed with lots of good data, excellent writing, and thoughtful graphics.
*That is assuming the mob of rabid feminazis who spend nine hours a day on r/IT possess the brainpower to read anything longer than a meme or a Tweet.
