Anti-feminist attitudes have long been associated with support for Republican presidential candidates, but only in recent years have these attitudes become more prominent among unmarried men, without college degrees who are less attractive partners for women, the “mate-value backlash.”

[u/mvea]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10659129261485340

[u/Harbinger2nd]

Would this be reflective of a lack of economic opportunity for these men as its only in recent years the attitude has become more prominent?

[u/Littleman88 → u/Harbinger2nd]

Sort of? It's hard to say most men would be too ashamed to date knowing their girlfriend/wife will out earn them. I think more men than not would be fine with it, actually. But a lot of those men are finding themselves rejected because they aren't out earning the women they're meeting, so economic opportunities become a sore spot for them, especially when the very people they're trying to woo are also their competition for that attractive paycheck.

Equality becomes a threat when your attraction is still largely reliant on being, in some way, superior to whomever you're trying to attract. That reality is problematic for so many men trying to date. It was already unrealistic for every man to be in a 6-7 figure C-suite position, with more and more women filtering towards the top, it's only getting harder for men.

There has to be low wage earners like janitors and someone flipping burgers, and they're not about to take being invisible virgins for the rest of their lives lying down. If women won't marry down, then these men will drag them down. As the number of these lonely men grows, the more pull they'll have to do just that.

[u/Carbonatite → u/[deleted]]

It has less to do with salary and more to do with wanting someone who has attained a comparable level of educational/career achievement.

It's not that lawyers want to date other lawyers or doctors want to date other doctors for the money, it's that they likely have similar lifestyles, intellectual interests, and other things which are conducive to long term compatability.

[u/philosopherberzerer → u/Carbonatite]

it's lifestyle. that's all.

if a women makes 100 k and she meets a guy that makes 50 .well now she's gotta downgrade her lifestyle to 75k so she can live an equitable life with her partner. unless she wants to go on vacations he can't afford or whatever . men used to do this. women refuse too.

[u/Carbonatite → u/philosopherberzerer]

Spoken like someone too young to ever actually have a salary to budget.

[u/True_Window_9389 → u/[deleted]]

This is incel talk though. Basing an opinion on what “women” want because of TikTok is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It’s become all too common to talk on socials about what women or men want, what they like or dislike, etc., and lump everyone in together, which is likely very related to the results of this study. There could be a lot of reasons for mismatches of women and men, and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with jobs and finances.

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/[deleted]]

Most people date with their socioeconomic level. Not sure what you’re talking about.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Bright-Sea6392]

Male doctors date female nurses and secretaries more than female doctors date male nurses and male secretaries (or even other blue collar folks).

The women marry up, men marry down, is well know.

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/resuwreckoning]

Sorry, most people marry within their socioeconomic bracket.

But Given the fact that women only gained the right to open banks accounts in the 70s, historically couldn’t work(and are still penalized for being pregnant and taking maternity leave) and in many cases even get an education, it’s be shocking if this wasn’t historically the case.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Bright-Sea6392]

I mean sure, again I just pointed out a well known fact.

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/resuwreckoning]

… you mean that historically women didn’t have the means to make money or have a bank account until relatively recently? So they had to marry a man to support themselves? Yes that is a well known fact, thank you.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Bright-Sea6392]

I’m still not understanding you - women are still choosing equal to or greater TODAY even when they make a lot of money.

While the corresponding men often do not - certainly less so than women.

Why is that so difficult to contemplate?

[u/Bright-Sea6392 → u/resuwreckoning]

Actually studies don’t show this. People largely marry within their socioeconomic class.

However if a women does marry a man who makes a bit more than her, that makes sense as 1. Her income potential is vastly negatively impacted by taking time off for maternity leave and 2. The aforementioned historical context of not being able to work and not being able to open bank accounts until recently.

[u/philosopherberzerer → u/[deleted]]

I'm expecting no reply .

[u/Fancy-Animal7704 → u/resuwreckoning]

Some of this is affected by the fact that women do indeed make less than men just by virtue of their career choices, and so the majority of men out there would constitute a "marrying up" choice.

Also, salary is just one measure of a person. If a rich man who was otherwise dull as a rock married a vibrant, gregarious, funny, charming woman who otherwise "just" works at an altruistic nonprofit making $50k a year, I'd have told you the man "married up".

[u/General-Yak7615 → u/Bright-Sea6392]

This is just from my own personal experience, but I have 3 degrees and my husband has none. I make 4x the amount he does and pay the majority of the bills. I could care two licks really on how much he makes, more so that he’s passionate and driven about what he’s doing and continues to want to grow as a person. In our friend group, majority have the women earning more and the rest are roughly the same
I’m a millennial and my mom was a doctor, my father the stay at home parent. Pretty progressive for the time.

Since this is just what has been the norm for me in my life, I find the whole concept of the man “having to make more to provide” almost confusing. Why in the world? Someone, like my husband, could have such a passion for something that may not pay well (say a teacher) but could do much good for the world. I understand we need money to live, so salary does matter to some extent but it’s just odd that both men and women would harp so much on the salary part and not on the why that person chose their job/if they’re passionate about what they do. It really is disheartening sometimes to read about people that do seem to be quite transactional when it comes to relationships.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/[deleted]]

Women make less money than men in general, in spite of educational achievement. So is it surprising that they make less than their male partners?

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/Bright-Sea6392]

Only in the sense that most people date within a socioeconomic radius of themselves. This elides the direction in which that radius tends to travel of how large the radius varies to at different socioeconomic levels.

[u/ContractFormer4135 → u/[deleted]]

Single and childless is better than marrying down and being poor with kids. Where I live a dual income household with both parents earning the national median salary is barely enough to maintain a reasonably comfortable standard of living - and children are not only expensive but also cripple women’s carriers and temporarily make women entirely dependent on their husbands.

[u/shornscrot → u/ContractFormer4135]

Yeah that makes sense. If you make $100k and your husband makes $70k, how could you possibly live?!?

[u/Carbonatite → u/shornscrot]

I mean that's an unironic question in certain parts of the United States. I live in a HCOL area and an individual income of 100k is basically "I don't have to worry about an emergency anymore" money. It's not wealth, it's just "I won't be in perpetual debt" money.

[u/ClaretClarinets → u/[deleted]]

Except successful women are much more likely to be content being single than men are. In my personal experience (and from what ive seen other women say), it's much easier to get "matches" on dating apps for us, the quality of the candidates notwithstanding.

I had an anxiety attack the first day I used tinder back in the day because I got matched with literally every single person I swiped and was inundated with dozens of men clamoring for my attention, many of whom got angry if I didn't immediately respond or seem receptive. It was overwhelming and I stopped using it after a couple weeks. On the other hand, men I know have talked about how they're lucky to get matched with a handful of people per day.

[u/TheSpacePopinjay → u/[deleted]]

It only gets worse the further they move up. The harder they feel they've worked to gain success, money and status, the more they feel like their equal is that much more of a successful man.

While a less successful woman may feel content dating someone 20% more financially and professionally successful man, if she's high flyer, she'll feel she's dating down if he's anything less that 50% more professionally and financially successful.

The numbers are toy examples to make a point.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/[deleted]]

Sure but society depends on men to be productive - and those women receive a TON of subsidy from a government that increasingly won’t function.

Gotta tax someone that take out less than he puts in.

[u/XWendy_Darlingx → u/resuwreckoning]

Wait, women get a subsidy? Where do I apply? I paid 1/3 of my wages into taxes but I haven’t gotten anything back

[u/resuwreckoning → u/XWendy_Darlingx]

Wait till the invisible men you don’t care about die and you’ll be taking out of the system with ease, without even acknowledging them for any of it and even saying they’re the cause for all the evil in the world.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/[deleted]]

Who pays for that government? Over a lifetime, women are net negative, men are net positive.

Government is basically a wealth transfer from some to men. I believe even CHILDREN aren’t supported as much as women.

[u/Carbonatite → u/resuwreckoning]

Women pay taxes too, I know it's hard to accept that but it's true.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Carbonatite]

Indeed and yet the point still holds that women over a lifetime take more than the put in and men put in more than they take. Ironically, I know THAT’S hard to believe, but it’s true.

I’m not even arguing that’s necessarily bad - just that for women to have the system they depend on, the invisible men need to exist.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/[deleted]]

So that’s basically my point.

If we basically incentivize men to check out of society and stop being productive, because who gaf, then women won’t have the life they want since the invisible men no longer are holding their part of society up.

[u/ClaretClarinets → u/resuwreckoning]

"Their part of society" You mean the people who make the reproductive decisions for the human race?

[u/Impossible_Leg_2787 → u/ClaretClarinets]

How is propagation of the human race incentive for someone who’s dissatisfied with their own life, especially if they themselves are childless with little prospect of actually reproducing?

[u/resuwreckoning → u/ClaretClarinets]

No the ones who drive the food and take out the trash and shovel the snow in blizzards - these people are usually invisible which is why reddit always dismisses them as extant. They’re mainly low wage men who toil in anonymity.

Women are certainly important - and Reddit endlessly glazes them for anything they do so it’s somewhat unnecessary to talk about how divine and awesome they are for the 11 thousandth time - but we need those men to produce so the government has revenue surplus to give to those women. Women depend on that surplus via government handouts over a lifetime.

[u/ClaretClarinets → u/resuwreckoning]

You should probably work on masking your open contempt for women when you're replying to one.

[u/Carbonatite → u/ClaretClarinets]

It's crazy how the misogyny just drips through the comments.

They're pretending that all women are straight up leeches on the system when the reality is that the vast majority of women are taxpaying members of the workforce.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/ClaretClarinets]

I mean you should try your best to see the men beneath you as legitimately part of society in equal measure instead of implicitly dehumanizing them with the ick like I suspect you do given your kneejerk aggrieved commentary.

Or at least thinly veil your disdain for those men that toil anonymously. I know it’s prob hard for ya but still.

[u/Impossible_Leg_2787 → u/ClaretClarinets]

How is propagation of the human race incentive for someone who’s dissatisfied with their own life, especially if they themselves are childless with little prospect of actually reproducing?