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.
You asking for proof of it is proof of it. It is a staple of social psychology going back decades. Refer for example to
Everyone knows women are highly dependent on group opinionand conform strongly to it. They are defined by their relationships and not by independent thought.
Who is more likely to follow fashions ? Who uses more makeup? Who follows “trends” online? Who is constantly being “influenced” by (anti)social media?Women, women, always overheelmingly women. Virtually every female trope and trend is a result of female conformity.
Who is more confident in their own ideas at work and aggressively rejects others’ ideas? MEN. Women conform. Why do men overwhelmingly come up with independent scientific, philosophical, intellectual and political ideas? Why is is almost NEVER women? Too busy conforming to come upnwith original work.
If you have children, obviously the boys rebel more. In school and at home obviously the girls conform more.
You actually knownall of this, your question is pure female cussedness.
Sounds wonderful, Jeff.
So few families are like that. I had a terrific father and a mother who hated me. She was Catholic, my dad, who loved me was not religious. Sad little girl, I begged to “go away to school” when I was in high school just to get away from her. Dad made big bucks, so I essentially left home at 15. Our high school was gorgeous, Catholic hurch had bought largest estate in Indiana and converted it without changing the atmosphere. A few of the nuns were fun. All were great teachers,
Needless to say, my marriage skills were lacking. Loved my kids and they knew it, one’s midair right now flying to Hawaii with friends to celebrate her birthday at the beach. HER marriage was fabulous. Sadly Fauci killed her husband. Four months from clot shot to death.
Life is complicated. A good attitude will get you through.
When FoxNews started almost all our favorites were young men- Tony Snow - the 'anchor' was 41 years old - - Hannity was 34. Thank God Hannity's resisted the twenty something bimbo. And he's resisted the democrat war room 'news packets' that promise to make him look better than he is... the 'Chris Wallace' turncoat stupid look (to the viewers but the 'smart look to fellow sold out 'journalists')... Some of the old men are going in that direction.
And why does it matter?
Because FOX is starting to look creepy and in 15 years it'll be run by average IQ middle aged women. That won't work...
That said, FOX has some of the most intelligent women in the news industry and they need to keep it that way... If FOX wants to 'hire for looks' may I suggest high IQ young men in their late 20's with strong principles and their own secure take on their political positions. IF any of 'em need 'talking points' don't hire them.
Is that really what you want?
Or they could do a mock up of what their shows look like to viewers by switching the ages of the men and women and seeing how an average, slightly overweight 60 year old woman looks on the set talking to two 24 year old hunks - men in the top 1% of looks - - with them reading from notes that were handed to them at the start of the show.
It's time for FOX and CNN etc to stop lamenting their 'great concern' about young men and start hiring a few.
LOL - Gutfeld should steal that line from you.. funny and more truth to it than many women want to believe.
Good for you - you've got style. And you're right about FOXNews too - they need to get their act together,
I've been told not to do exactly that sort of thing......by women themselves.....ie to let them fight their own battles/speak for themselves.
Less enthusiastic.....or less able to attract another mate?
If we needed you, there wouldn't be so many surviving without you.
Well, I'm sure they have better luck with a woman who has no idea what she's getting into. LOL!
If we needed you, there wouldn’t be so many surviving without you.
Batteries are no substitute for a man.
What's that got to do with porn? You said that women consume as much porn as men and are more affected by it. That's very specific. Vague talk about women being more cooperative is not going to suffice as proof. You made a specific claim, it requires specific support. Surely a logical, rational man like you understands that.
Okay. But I did ask you specifically about your perception of something I said. There is no need to be coy about answering a direct question about your opinion.
Well, yes... I guess I do have to remember that in a divorce, the woman usually ends up with the kids, and so many men don't even want to raise their own children, it does make sense that they might not want to help raise someone else's.
I wouldn't know, but it sounds like you do.
Wut???
You're ingesting some serious quantities of copium.
The article is titled "No Wonder Men Are Opting Out" and it's about men walking away.
There are literally thousands of videos online of women crashing out because they've hit The Wall and they realize that if they're single they're not going to have children, or if they're single mothers that no simp is coming along to pay for Pookie and RayRay's kids.
Getting clicks and getting paid
because they've hit The Wall and they realize that if they're single they're not going to have children, or if they're single mothers that no simp is coming along to pay for Pookie and RayRay's kids.
Is there a name for these women? Because there are so many men who can't get a woman, there's actually a name for them: INCEL.
The Wall is undefeated.
As best I recall several posts later, no, that was not what I thought you were saying.
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.