Posted on 05/22/2026 8:23:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The warning signs have been there for decades.
Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic, inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible and less than a real man.
Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame and the yoke comes off.
Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.
The trend is not confined to America. Similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK, Australia and Canada.
The marriage collapse runs in lockstep with the workforce data. According to US Census Bureau data, married-couple households made up 71% of all US households in 1970; today it’s just 47%. As University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox documents in his 2024 book Get Married, the marriage rate has fallen 65% in the last half century.
Ehrenreich had made the argument that marriage and productivity were inseparable — that the same mechanism which got men to the altar got them to work. The data suggest she was right.
What Ehrenreich did not fully reckon with — and could not have foreseen in 1983 — was that the inducements for tying the knot would collapse. The shame mechanism has disappeared, yes. But the incentive has simultaneously imploded. The product on offer has changed beyond recognition. If you want to understand why men are voting with their feet, you need to look not just at what marriage now costs them — and the costs are severe — but at what it delivers. Increasingly, what it delivers is a pretty dud deal.
The modern woman: a prospectus:
They are the most miserable, anxious and insecure cohort in living memory — hardly great marriage material.
Most married women go off sex — and the husband who objects is seen as the problem.
Many women don’t actually like men very much. The more educated she is, the higher the contempt.
They’ve gone full throttle Left — and three quarters of college-educated women won’t even date a man who votes differently.
They’ve rigged the education system and colonised corporate and institutional life, turning universities and workplaces into man-repellent factories.
Yet their hypergamy is still running hot. Despite outnumbering men in education and careers, they still demand a tall, equally high-status unicorn.
The modern female threat-detection system is hyperactive. Almost any male behaviour — silence, opinions, jokes, breathing — gets flagged as a red flag.
They’re extremely well-versed in the lucrative economics of divorce, including a well-timed false allegation to eliminate tedious shared parenting.
What rational man reads this list and thinks: yes, that’s exactly what’s been missing from my life?
To examine more carefully what is going on here, let’s start by looking at the latest addition to this sorry reckoning. I’m referring to the finding published in the New Statesman last month that many young women don’t like men.
A Merlin Strategy poll of young Britons aged 18 to 30 found three times more young women than young men held a negative view of the opposite sex. Only about 50% of women had a positive view of men compared to 72% of men feeling positive about women. For women under 25, it was even starker: only around one-third (35%) reported a positive view of men. This applies particularly to professional and managerial young women of whom just 36% hold a positive view of men, compared with 61% of working-class women.
The contempt for men is hardly surprising – that’s what they have been taught. Mary Harrington, a British journalist and cultural critic who writes on Substack, frequently criticises what she calls the “femosphere” — the online feminist spaces where women bond through shared grievances about men.
“The online feminist scene often feels like one long group therapy session for women to compare notes on how awful men are,” she writes, suggesting this makes men the universal scapegoat, where ordinary male behaviour is routinely framed as toxic or oppressive, while women’s collective resentment is rewarded and amplified. “Casual, low-level male-bashing has become the background hum of progressive online culture.”
Not only does this toxic climate encourage women to be wary of men, but growing up in a hate-fuelled online sewer takes a toll on their mental health.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has long been warning that the toxic world of social media would lead to a rise in mental health problems, particularly in girls and young women.
“Since the early 2010s, young people across the developed world are becoming more anxious, depressed and lonely. The increases were even greater in young women,” he said.
Recent large-scale surveys (Ipsos 202-–2026 across 31 countries, Gallup 2025) are showing Gen Z women currently report the highest recorded levels of anxiety, persistent sadness, hopelessness and depression of any female generation at the same age.
Not much fun for their partners. Last year Psychology Today had a stark warning for men about these women as marriage prospects.
The saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ may have some validity, but the lesser-known saying ‘anxious wife, miserable life’ has research-approved validation. … The more neurotic the spouse is, the less happy the relationship — but women’s neuroticism seems to carry more weight in the overall marital happiness equation.
Then there’s the intriguing issue of married women turning off the tap, leaving sex-starved husbands as the norm. For as long as anyone can remember, men were shamed into showing up economically. Society has absolutely nothing to say to women who stop showing up sexually. One obligation was enforced by church, law and community for centuries. The other is now abrogated on the grounds of bodily autonomy.
So here we have the portrait of the modern woman as marriage prospect: miserable, anxious, politically radicalised, contemptuous of men, often sexually rejecting and trained to see menace in ordinary male behaviour. And yet the puzzled chorus from commentators, economists and policymakers continues: why won’t men commit? Why won’t they work?
The approved explanations are dutifully trotted out. The economic story: men have been displaced by automation and globalisation. The health story: opioids, disability, mental illness. The educational story: men are falling behind women in universities and therefore in the job market. The cultural story, favoured by progressive commentators: toxic masculinity is preventing men from adapting to a modern service economy. All of these contain a grain of truth. But they do not account for what is really going on. The obvious explanation — the one staring out of every data table — is intentionally ignored.
Marriage was the primary incentive for sustained male economic effort. It has always been — Ehrenreich knew it in 1983, and the economists have now confirmed it. There’s an economic research paper, ‘The Declining Labour Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men, which establishes that the prospect of forming and providing for a family constitutes a critical male labour supply incentive, and that the decline of stable marriage directly removes it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas calculated that declining marriage rates are responsible for roughly half the drop in the hours men work.
Remove the marriage and you remove the responsibility. The data have been telling us this for decades.
But here is what nobody in the mainstream conversation will say: it is not only that marriage has become too costly and too legally treacherous for men — though it has. It’s that many young women themselves have become, to put it plainly, not worth having. Half of young British women don’t trust men. More than half of educated young women view men negatively. They arrive at relationships pre-loaded with grievance, primed by algorithms that have fed them a diet of male failure and female outrage since adolescence. They are, by their own account, anxious, miserable and politically furious.
What rational man, surveying this landscape, concludes that what his life is missing is a legally booby-trapped commitment to a woman primed to be impossible to keep happy?
Ehrenreich feared in 1983 that if the shame mechanism collapsed, male productivity would follow. She was right. What she could not have anticipated was the other half of the equation — that the feminist revolution would produce not a generation of fulfilled, generous, companionable women, but one that is, by every available measure, angrier and unhappier than any before it.
The yoke is off. The men have looked at what’s on offer. And many have, with considerable rationality, decided to go and play video games instead.
As one of Australia’s first sex therapists, Bettina Arndt began her career discussing sex on television and training doctors and other professionals in sexual counselling at a time when such topics were largely taboo. Her current – and even more socially unacceptable – passion is exposing Australia’s unfair treatment of men through the relentless weaponisation of laws and policies that portray women solely as victims. Her decades of advocacy for fair treatment of men in the Family Court included serving on key government inquiries. Bettina makes YouTube videos and blogs on Substack.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I am aware that men gave way, to the detriment of society.
I’m not against women working, but we have to respect God’s plan for man. In my view and understanding, since the main purpose of marriage is children, the twenties is when women should be marrying and having children. As long as there are dependent children, the woman should be home and the man bear the main burden of providing for the family.
When children start separating themselves from the mother, that’s when the father takes a greater role in their lives. He should be, at that age, take them with him out into the world so they can see how the world works.
That doesn’t mean that woman can’t prepare for the workplace, but in a society that needs to replace itself or die, there times when it is most appropriate to be home and there are times when woman can be working.
I am aware, but Western soceity’s is at risk of being replaced by Islam.
quote “Such a subservient population can’t be controlled if they serve God”
hm.. I am not so sure about that. Medieval Europe was far more Christian than anywhere today. And the elites had far greater control over their serfs than the elites could ever dream of today.
According to tv commercials and much of the media, the solution for young white women is to get a black partner. Then it’s live happily ever after using the product being advertised. It’s for women to drive automobiles in those ads while the docile beta male calmly sits in the passenger seat smiling. It’s for women cops to easily handle the largest man in a fight. And then it’s for women to demand equal pay and large alimony checks upon divorce.
Funny how feminazis will praise young women squandering their 20s in countless affairs - which they frame as "going on a journey of discover" or "finding themselves" or "acquiring experience." If they are halfway honest, they might even concede that such a lifestyle might entail a couple of abortions along the way, or require multiple antibiotic regimes to battle a host of venereal diseases.
But as soon as a conservative describes this as "riding the CC," the feminists get all huffy and righteous like Catholic nuns. "Why do you have to be so vulgar?!"
Because it is vulgar!
Regards,
Well actually it shows marriage rates did not decline until the 1970s. I'm sure women working was a big part of the marriage rate decline. The frequency of divorce and must have also been a part of it. For example California adopted no fault divorce laws in 1969.
A doctor is required to get a wife's approval before a husband gets a vasectomy but can prescribe birth control or abort a child without the husband knowing.
Could find absolutely no evidence for such an assertion.
At most, in earlier eras (e.g., the 1950s), some hospitals may have had policies in place which informally allowed physicians / hospital administrators to "gatekeep" and require spousal approval - but that most certainly went in both directions; and in all likelihood, men seeking vasectomies encountered fewer such informal barriers than women seeking sterilization.
You raise multiple excellent arguments, T.B. Yoits, but I find this one claim rather specious.
Regards,
Do you mean that you "wound up adopting?
Regards,
This particular item in the narrative is poorly presented and misleading. In fact, it’s probably not even relevant to the author’s underlying point. The reason for this is that the “aged 16 and over” statistic has no upper limit, and the size of the total potential work force in the U.S. includes everyone ages 16 and over who is not in school, in prison, or in a nursing home.Excellent observation, Alberta's Child!U.S. labor participation rates have declined over the last 80 years mainly because more and more Americans today are RETIRED, not because of any of the factors the author discusses here.
It would, indeed, be absolutely pointless to cite any such statistic which had not been "adjusted" to account for lengthening life-expectancies and prolonged retirements.
Thanks!
Regards,
Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic, inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture and a desire for personal freedom.Wait. [...] I have been told over and over on this forum that men didn't start rejecting marriage, women did. Women became feminists, entered the workplace, took over the colleges... and THAT was why men were drawing back. [...] I was told over and over by the men of Free Republic that No No No, women started this trend.
Right, A_perfect_lady! You've put your finger on just one of the many serious flaws of the original article!
Thank you for pointing out yet another major fallacy contained in this article!
Regards,
Except for the many, many societies - including many modern societies - which have legally enshrined polygyny and where polygyny enjoys significant societal approval.
We're talking about 58 countries, with a population of roughly 1.7–2.0 billion people.
Of course, those are mostly sh*thole countries - so don't take my correction as tacit approval of such set-ups! It has undoubtedly helped keep them backward!
Regards,
The Playboy Philosophy + The Pill = Feminism
I agree with your comment - with the exception of that one word.
Regards,
The Playboy Philosophy got the ball rolling.
At most, in earlier eras (e.g., the 1950s), some hospitals may have had policies in place which informally allowed physicians / hospital administrators to "gatekeep" and require spousal approval...
...I find this one claim rather specious.
It's not hospitals, it's the urologist avoiding litigation from the wife who can be a party to the lawsuit if the vasectomy doesn't take. That's the given reason but it's the same result - many urologists will not perform a vasectomy on a married man without the wife's approval.
A septum ring a wearing karen with a sexual body count that stretches in to the sunset....
OH Yeah I got to get me some of daT.........NOT!
I see and listen to them in the wild (you really don’t have a choice as sometimes as they are very loud) screeching, cackling and high fiveing for being sluts and then they go home and binge drink.
Yes. With divorce in particular, choosing government over religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.