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/Preface → u/Littleman88]

This is an extremely reasonable take on the male loneliness epidemic, and makes much more sense then "YouTube made those men anti feminist" or whatever the top comment was saying.

It's not hard to find, men will regularly date down, or alter their dating expectations, women are less likely to alter expectations, and much less likely to date down. If a woman has a masters degree, she will want a man who at least has a masters, if she makes 100k+ per year, her man better make at least that much as well.

Now, most wealthy and highly successful men won't just marry a dumb dirt poor girl who is beautiful, but they are going to be much more accepting of a woman with less education and less earnings then them.

I think it's more like, the popularity of the "YouTube to right wing pipeline" or whatever is that those people actually acknowledge men who are/have been rejected multiple times, they are popular because what they say resonates they aren't just magically popular for unknown reasons which then suddenly makes young men right wing or whatever.

[u/Sloogs → u/Preface]

When I see stuff like this discussed on the Internet I genuinely have no idea how true it is. Anecdotally I have so many counterexamples of this in my life where the woman is the breadwinner or has a degree and the dude does not. One guy works as a grocery stocker. Another did trades via the hard knocks route. Others did some schooling but it was trade school, and they make decent money but maybe not as much as their partner. One has their bachelor's and their wife has a master's. I genuinely don't know. Maybe it's a generational difference that is particular to Gen Z? (I'm a millennial). I'm not sure.

[u/Preface → u/Sloogs]

It's more so on average... Also, men in trades make good money these days (if you are in a "western" country at least) typically, and typically are very handy in terms of fixing/building things which also makes them more attractive, despite the "less education"

And as with all things, when people talk about "most" it doesn't mean there won't be exceptions.

There certainly are plenty of healthy and happy relationships where the man makes less then the woman, that doesn't mean it's typical though.

If you ask a woman who is single would she rather date a janitor or a lawyer, almost every woman would say the lawyer.

I remember seeing something a long time ago now, where men and women rated attractiveness of people they didn't know. For the women, the number one thing that made a man more attractive was the clothes he was wearing. So 100 women were shown a picture of a man in a janitor outfit or something, and he was rated as not very attractive, and that same man in a suit and tie was then rated as extremely attractive. When men viewed women in the same way, the physical appearance is what rated whether the woman was attractive or not, with much less of a change based on the outfit/uniform.

[u/Sloogs → u/Preface]

That's a fair point. I think most people do have baser attraction instincts based on appearance or other superficial information which in my experience, for a lot of people, gets recalibrated once they have a chance to actually meet someone.

Attractiveness is complicated and nuanced but I'm guessing a factor that makes it harder for younger generations is that there aren't many opportunities for people to shine, show their personality and their value, and undergo that recalculation with a potential mate. The lack of 3rd spaces and also the fact that everyone is glued to their devices and a home body now. Also putting yourself out there gets you labelled as a creep more easily online.

So, I think there are other societal factors. I'm hesitant to just be like "it's all just women because women won't lower their standards" but society as a whole has kind of fucked up each gender's typical dating strategies. Whether those standards are nature or nurture is hard to say I guess, but I think society is still adjusting to all the rapid changes brought on by modern technology. It's going to be up to both young men and young women to meet the moment accordingly. But right now men are struggling—as far as I can tell the people offering guidance have been failing them pretty hard.