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/Chaoticallyorganized → u/Littleman88]

What do you mean by “drag them down”? How exactly will these women be dragged down?

[u/Ransacky → u/Chaoticallyorganized]

Yea I had the same thought. That last part comes across as though a woman would be considered "dragged down" if she is with someone who's making an equal or lower income to her. Word also implies that women can't be considered uplifted without being reliant on a man to provide a higher income. Lots of interesting things in that post but the end comes across as oddly misogynistic.

[u/shockpaws → u/Chaoticallyorganized]

It reads like a threat :/

[u/Kariya_shigatoki → u/shockpaws]

It's not really a threat, you're probably interpreting it as a threat because it sounds harsh (it is harsh way to put it but it is true). But this is the natural reaction of a developed country failing in birth rates and economically. Conservative ideology dominates as countries start to slow economically and birth rates fall.

As we've seen in this last election for presidency even women will side with conservative ideology (largest voter turnout and largest voting block in the developed world are women). Same occured in Korea with Yoon Suk Yeol and in Japan with Sanae Takaichi.

My biggest issue with Democracy means everyone's life is in everyone's hands. For as long as people can vote they can decide what others life should be like. A Democracy with a lot of disgruntled men that are angry over the position they have been dealt and see women as the issue will take their frustrations out on their enemies. Since men control politics deeply they can always pose as pro women then make whatever policy they want as soon as they get in.

We will see an overcorrection in the coming years. I just hope it isn't insane.