by Bettina Arndt via DailySceptic.org,
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.
