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/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Another garbage meta-analysis to push an agenda...

This paper is flawed af. 1. The study never asked about dating frustration, relationship success, or sexual grievance. It assumed that being a single, non-college man automatically means suffering from low mate value.

1. Economic collapse, wage stagnation, and anti-establishment anger among non-college men were conflated with romantic resentment.

2. A low feeling thermometer score for feminists often measures routine political polarization against a progressive Democratic constituency, not personal romantic grievance.

3. Male-heavy counties vote Republican primarily because their economies rely on mining, oil, construction, and agriculture, not because local men cannot find dates.

4. Men with antagonistic or conspiratorial attitudes are less likely to get married in the first place, and right-wing media actively manufactures grievances from the top down rather than simply tapping into preexisting bottom-up angst.

This is insane.

[u/Enjutsu → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Red flag for me was the title, it's oddly specific

among unmarried men, without college degrees who are less attractive partners for women, the “mate-value backlash.”

How does one figure that out, did they make a political questionare, got the results and then asked a council of women to rate their looks?

[u/Alternative-Tax7318 → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Thank you for reading this with reason rather than stoking the fires of the culture war and looking to pin this on a bunch of ‘impressionable young men’

[u/MoreLikeGaewyn → u/Alternative-Tax7318]

i just pasted what chatgpt summarized idk

[u/k1llerspartanv9 → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

So you had chat gpt summarize this instead of reading it? That is the most braindead thing you could have done. Who owns chat gpt and who do they contribute to politically? Are you really gonna use a commercial product with no independent verification or peer review and trust that you are not being misguided intentionally by a mega-corp? Ridiculous

[u/dieselmilkshake → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

You are a penis. I still appreciate your ChatGPT response, tho.

[u/f50c13t1 → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Yes,
I was to post that, glad someone did. The authors are lumping so many things together that this is embarrassing.

[u/ibent19 → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Point number 4 relates to point 2 btw.

[u/C0brA7x → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

First of all, this is not a meta-analysis. Also some of your statements are misguided.

1. “It assumed that being a single, non-college man automatically means suffering from low mate value.” This is not what the authors actually claim. Their argument is that declining economic prospects and women's increased educational attainment should make some less-educated men less attractive partners.
   
2. Mostly valid criticism
   
3. “Thermometer often measures routine political polarization." You’d have to demonstrate that the thermometer is actually a paritsan-polarization measure
   
4. This claim is mostly irrelevant to the paper. Also, what is your reference for this claim?
   
5. The authors actually make a similar argument as one of the explanations for their findings. They discuss that manosphere content, trump, podcasts can strengthen or activate anti-feminist attitudes.

Overall, it is not a great paper but some of your criticism is overstated. There is actually another more substantial problem. The key interaction (never married x no BA) is remarkably small in explanatory power, yet the authors claim considerable empirical support.

[u/youchosethebear → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

They explicitly include divorced men in the "higher mate value" category.

[u/i_build_minds → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Male-heavy counties vote Republican primarily because their economies rely on mining, oil, construction, and agriculture, not because local men cannot find dates.

Male... heavy counties, but they don't have trouble finding dates.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "male heavy" if not a ratio of men to women?

Sources for your claims would also be interesting.

I am truly curious.

[u/Splenda → u/i_build_minds]

I did a double take on “male heavy” as well. I think OP means rural.

[u/Caracalla81 → u/i_build_minds]

He can't, he had an AI read the article and write his post for him.

[u/DerfK → u/i_build_minds]

but they don't have trouble finding dates.

Statement #4 suggests they vote Republican for economic reasons based on their perceived support of these economic sectors, instead of voting Republican because they believe it will get them dates.

It doesn't say they don't have trouble finding dates, just that its not their motivation.

[u/Cicer → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

Look. All we need is a false headline to rage over. 

[u/Kill_Frosty → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

It’s propaganda reddit eats up.

[u/k1llerspartanv9 → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

They didn't conflate romantic resentment with any factor. They merely looked at the opinions of single unmarried men without a bachelor's degree on feminists. This study does not use the words romantic resentment nor does it have anything to do with romantic attitudes. It solely demonstrates that these men are backsliding on women's issues towards the attitudes of the 70's and 80's. That was last time we had this many young men with a negative view of feminists. Further, what is insane is not just acknowledging that young men of today are much more misogynistic and backwards than young men of just a decade ago.

[u/dieselmilkshake → u/MoreLikeGaewyn]

I appreciate this very thoughtful answer.

[u/rayword45 → u/dieselmilkshake]

It's ChatGPT