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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
Women working is not necessarily the cause. It fits the criteria of a symptom.
Further,
The feminists had a lot of help from men who, when faced with the prospect of losing a chance at some action, caved in to their agenda. When the feminists remodeled the school system so that girls could hit or kick boys for any or no reason and didn't protect the boys or allow them to protect themselves, how did the boys' fathers respond? [...] Yet many of those same fathers will complain about the openly rigged system when they get dragged into family court. [...] The problem is that men don't care until it happens to them.
Sadly, these men (fathers) were simply deceived - see the "Boiling Frog" / "Camel's Nose in the Tent" paradigms.
The first, few, modest demands didn't seem all that unreasonable - and/or those men didn't realize how drastically they'd be implemented.
The phenomenon of "Unintended Consequences" was at play here.
Yes, some men "caved" in order to get "action." In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, in the early days of the Hippie Movement, young American men enjoyed a temporary demographic advantage: The "Baby Boom" had already crescendoed, meaning that your typical randy young man found a roughly equal no. of eligible females in his age-cohort - But an even greater no. of slightly younger females. This temporarily disrupted assortative mating: The young men had an abundance of potential mates; since women still tended to prefer somewhat older (2-5 years) men, those men (in their early / mid-20s) had tremendous leverage (in game theory, even slight advantages favoring one side can have a major impact on negotiations; this applies also to Sexual Marketplace dynamics).
My personal theory is that the "Free Love" movement in all its variations can be attributed, ultimately, to that, and that "The Pill," alone, couldn't have otherwise done it (i.e., totally disrupted traditional assortative mating).
"The Pill" was a necessary-but-not-sufficient precondition for the melt-down of morals and the concomitant collapse of traditional courtship patterns. The demographic effect likewise wouldn't have been enough on its own; it may have been merely "contributory" or "amplifying." But together...
Regards,
Social isolation, perhaps. Moving away from the larger family units (grandparents, cousins, etc)
The lefties already had a foothold in mass media and academia, and that foothold grew into what we have today. While women today initiate more divorces, in the 1950s, it was largely comfortable men who wanted a new wife.
That's pretty balanced. Thank you.
That is true
In the 1950s? Divorce in the 1950s?
What do you think is the root cause?
Yes. Once individuals moved from ethnic neighborhoods of extended families to support WW2, their views of marriage changed, including who they married and any stigma attached to divorce.
States were forced to play catch up with Mexican and Haitian divorce laws, which post war travel and communications made easier. Reno Nevado had been the "Divorce Capital of the World" since the 1930s and in 1942 the U.S. Supreme Court other states had to recognize these divorces (Williams v. North Carolina).
Divorce (and the fantasy of children reconciling their parents) was accepted enough for Disney to release "The Parent Trap" in 1961, despite the Hays Code for movies still in effect. "The Parent Trap" was about twin sisters separated when young because their parents divorced. Fun Disney hijinks ensue and the parents magically remarry, all part of a box office success. Disney wasn't selling that movie to two-year-olds.
It's sometimes difficult to exactly time the onset of a particular item, and thus to unambiguously establish whether it was a "cause" or a "result" (i.e., "symptom"). Below my tentative list of "factors":
1. The Pill
2. Urbanization/mobility and less community policing
3. The demographic bulge
4. Countercultural ideology
5. Economic optimism / prosperity
6. Weakening of traditional institutions
7. Vietnam War pressures
8. Mass media + music culture
9. Shifts in parental authority
10. Peer group norm diffusion
11. Automobile culture / mobility
12. Decline of early marriage norms
13. Growth of co ed environments
14. Changing gender roles (including delayed marriage and longer female workforce participation; conversely: increasing female college enrollment)
15. Secularization trends
16. Legal changes (e.g., privacy, contraception access)
17. Postwar psychological shifts (optimism, individualism)
18. Anti establishment political climate
19. Popularization of therapy / self expression
20. Influence of European avant garde ideas
21. Rise of youth consumer culture
22. Technological changes (cars, phones, records)
23. Expansion of leisure time
24. Geographic mobility / interstate migration
Regards,
Also women working in the factories during WWII, was a game-changer as well.
It doesn't matter what I think, although it's not a singular "cause" but "causes".
See Post 16. Each of those scenarios accumulated, and at some point men realized that the only winning move was not to play, hence the "opting out".
That’s a good list.
I’d include the one from #163
“Social isolation, perhaps. Moving away from the larger family units (grandparents, cousins, etc)”
I'd add what those factors changed with freedom and responsibility and how men and women were affected by that freedom and responsibility and the ongoing choices made by men and women.
I'd also add the insidious pressure on individuals, families, and societies as we moved from rights to debt and tax slavery in the early 1900s, as the world has been steadily shifting from kingdoms to countries to "economic systems". This includes the advent and rise of korporations and how they operate in relation to individuals, families, societies, governments, and cultures.
Fine, then show me where the other men have done anything about this.
Sadly, these men (fathers) were simply deceived - see the "Boiling Frog" / "Camel's Nose in the Tent" paradigms.
I understand, but the issue you're replying to has been going on for over five decades. That's far too long for men to fail to do something about it.
What's worse, it's a simple demand to make. If you don't allow boys to do it to girls, then don't allow girls to do it to boys. No one could argue with that, and the teachers who take it upon themselves to decide that one group of students must take whatever abuse (and that's what it is) the other group dishes out could be fired on legal grounds alone. Yet men can't even make a stand on that.
And I said men. If you want to reword it as some men, then show me where any group of fathers have done anything to change this.
Apart from that, a lot of what you posted makes sense. So here we are.
Yes, but a higher percentage than ever is raising them alone. When those kids are old enough to vote and are running the country, who do you think they are going to favor when it comes time to hand out the benefits? The mothers who raised them, or you?
(On a related note, having children to take care of you in your old age is damn selfish and completely dehumanizing to those children).
Maybe so, but that doesn't refute the economics of it.
Feminism didn't free women from the oppression they were told they were under, it freed men from the oppression they didn't know they were under.
Based on your post #16, that porn activism doesn't appear to be working too well.
Women's. It's already their problem. As the article points out, men are opting out.
That reply doesn't address the issue you're replying to, which is that future generations raised by women won't care about men. Whose problem will that be?
You're making the case of those opting out of an extortion racket, because that's exactly what that is. "If you don't get married, we'll vote and USE GOVERNMENT to run the country to your disadvantage."
Women chose government for security and are raising "son-husbands" as Kevin Samuels accurately described them, but it's not turning out as they hoped.
Unless they’ve come up with a way to make babies without men, every one of those babies has a father who made the choice to ram it into the woman.
Again, women's. It already is.
The largest demographic of single-motherhood is black women, and the largest demographic of single, never married, no children is black men.
Pookie and Ray Ray ain't gonna pay her bills, and while she and others like her decided to use government to force men to pay them, we're $140 Trillion in the hole, while more and more men opt out.
They really thought men would tolerate it and they were correct for two generations. When it started failing, they figured they'd bring in foreigners to take the same bad deal. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked well and the systems are failing.
There's no unringing that bell. Men have taken the red pill and even the black pill.
One could use the consequences you listed as evidence that it is men, not the women who are gaming the system, who are suffering the most. So much for your porn activism.
Again, the article is about men opting out. FEWER men are making the choice to "ram it into the woman". It's not just a collapse in marriage rates, it's a decline in birthrates.
So, the number of "every one of those babies" is trending -1, -10, -100, -1000, etc.
Scroll down to "What's behind the U.S.'s declining fertility rate?". It has nothing to do with your porn activism. In fact, one of the major factors should be seen as good news.
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.