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
I respectfully disagree. You are looking at the symptoms of a society that has diminished marriage over a period of time. How we got here is due to the sinful and selfish nature of all people. It’s not just men or women who made it that way, it’s the negative feedback of selfish behavior of both that got us to this point.
And those destructive government policies were implemented to satisfy selfish ambitions of government officials and their patrons.
NOW yes, society-wide, though not the whole male population. But no significant effects in the fifties.
By the way, women use pornorgraphy as much as men and much more openly. They call them “novels” ( as if!) and they are probably more dark and twisted than mainstream XXX videos.
Women being less independent, more gullible and conformist than men means women are on net balance far more affected by porn than men.
False equivalency. The Holocaust occurred under an oppressive, paranoid regime where speaking out against it was a crime. Even so, there was a resistance movement, including several attempts at Hitler himself.
Men who fight the bias in the school system would not face that. They would face some name calling from the left, but nothing compared to what the "Women's Lib" and Civil Rights movements faced early on.
Besides, who could argue with a stand like "if you don't allow boys to do it to girls, then don't allow girls to do it to boys"?
For the third time: I am not qualified to comment upon that!
You're the one who replied to my point on that. Why comment on a point and then say you can't?
Anyway, this might help.
That is NOT the focus of the debate in which I am participating. SEE THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!
My posts are in DIRECT RESPONSE to that title. The issue why men are opting out. They're opting out because of the bias they face. We've known that for decades. What I'm discussing is why men have done little to change it.
Men shell out billions a year for prostitution, strip bars, porn, etc, and next to nothing on activism to change these biases. If women invest in activism while men spend billions on porn and what not, whose rights do you think are going to get priority?
You seem to be confused: You and I are basically on the same side - though you place emphasis on different sub-topics.
We both want the same thing, but I'm trying to get men to see that the choices they make have a lot to do with the bias they face. I know, I know, not all men, but far too few are willing to invest in stopping it. You can't say it's because they don't have the resources, because pornographers and human traffickers are making billions from men who consume their "product". That's the problem that has to be fixed. Opting out will only make men irrelevant in a few decades as women have babies without them.
Male rule is normal and how human society is supposed to be, biologically, logically and practically.
There has been TREMENDOUS progress under male rule. The problems you describe are normal, part of the fabric of reality and mammalian life. War, poverty, violence etc are normal to the human species, not somehow magically caused by “male rule”.
Male rule ie. civilization is how we progress and manage those problems. In the West especially America it was working - until the rise of feminism. After that you can see clear cultural decline, progress slowing and reversing.
FOXNews PAIRS 50, 60 and 70 year old MEN with extremely attractive YOUNG WOMEN IN THEIR TWENTIES.
MANY AT FOXNEWS ARE devolving into a mix of 'Chris Wallace ("I can tell the difference between 'news' stories FROM self serving ones in democrat war room news packets that are just 'good'."
Hint: democrats spent over a year figuring out how to manipulate the fool Chris Wallace) Mixed with Bill O'Reilly who near the end was inviting attractive young bimbos to compete for his attention on air. Something Jesse Watters is starting to pick up on.
Creepy to watch.
The good news? There's also a fair number of intelligent conservative women on FOX - but there are ZERO young men in their twenties.
FOXNews worked when it started with young men with conservative principle who DIDN'T GET 'HELP' FROM DEMOCRAT NEWS PACKETS designed to 'make them look good. FOX doesn't have fans among the people like they did before the young bimbo/old men look took over the channel. Come on guys, are you really that insecure?
FOXNews PAIRS 50, 60 and 70 year old MEN with extremely attractive YOUNG WOMEN IN THEIR TWENTIES.
MANY AT FOXNEWS ARE devolving into a mix of 'Chris Wallace ("I can tell the difference between 'news' stories FROM self serving ones in democrat war room news packets that are just 'good'."
Hint: democrats spent over a year figuring out how to manipulate the fool Chris Wallace) Mixed with Bill O'Reilly who near the end was inviting attractive young bimbos to compete for his attention on air. Something Jesse Watters is starting to pick up on.
Creepy to watch.
The good news? There's also a fair number of intelligent conservative women on FOX - but there are ZERO young men in their twenties.
FOXNews worked when it started with young men with conservative principle who DIDN'T GET 'HELP' FROM DEMOCRAT NEWS PACKETS designed to 'make them look good. FOX doesn't have fans among the people like they did before the young bimbo/old men look took over the channel. Come on guys, are you really that insecure? Young heterosexual men to NOT exist on almost any news channels.
FOXNews PAIRS 50, 60 and 70 year old MEN with extremely attractive YOUNG WOMEN IN THEIR TWENTIES.
MANY AT FOXNEWS ARE devolving into a mix of 'Chris Wallace ("I can tell the difference between 'news' stories FROM self serving ones in democrat war room news packets that are just 'good'."
Hint: democrats spent over a year figuring out how to manipulate the fool Chris Wallace) Mixed with Bill O'Reilly who near the end was inviting attractive young bimbos to compete for his attention on air. Something Jesse Watters is starting to pick up on.
Creepy to watch.
The good news? There's also a fair number of intelligent conservative women on FOX - but there are ZERO young men in their twenties.
FOXNews worked when it started with young men with conservative principle who DIDN'T GET 'HELP' FROM DEMOCRAT NEWS PACKETS designed to 'make them look good. FOX doesn't have fans among the people like they did before the young bimbo/old men look took over the channel. Come on FOX and other network news outlets, are you really that insecure? Hire some young men.
The young men on “news” stations are usually only the gay weather reporters.
Can you prove that?
WWI Britain or France or WWII Russia or Berlin? Sure. WWII America? No. We thankfully did not suffer so many casualties as to cause a huge demographic imbalance....ie not enough men died to greatly drive up the value of men. The reason the marriage and birth rates were so high after the war was pent up demand from 4 years of lots of young men being away fighting.
Bingo. If all that is on offer is mid 30s and older women who have ridden the CC for a decade and a half to 2 decades and who he knows don't really want him but instead think they're "settling" by being with someone who is at their same level of attractiveness would require the man to have no self respect in order to accept. Lots and lots of men would rather stay single than ever accept such a rotten one sided deal.
Having been told by feminists that they can do whatever the hell they want, waste all of their youth and then men will just have to roll over and take it when they finally do decide to get serious about settling down, a lot of women are truly shocked that men do not in fact have to just accept it, that they get to choose too, and that they have standards too. They then become very bitter and filled with hatred for all men. Nowhere along the way for many is there any recognition that the feminists sold them a pack of lies all along. Look at some of the posts in this thread and you can see it.
Yanet Garcia is the bomb.
Nice to hear from a fellow Man Of Culture.
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.