Culture How Our Messed-Up Dating Culture Leads to Loneliness, Anger and Donald Trump


Nov. 30, 2024
By Sarah Bernstein - Ms. Bernstein’s latest play, “Strange Men,” takes place in a dating workshop for straight men and is currently in development with Stroller Scene.



Joe Rogan. Elon Musk. Representatives of bro culture are on the ascent, bringing with them an army of disaffected young men. But where did they come from? Many argue that a generation of men are resentful because they have fallen behind women in work and school. I believe this shift would not have been so destabilizing were it not for the fact that our society still has one glass-slippered foot in the world of Cinderella.

Hundreds of years after the Brothers Grimm published their version of that classic rags-to-riches story, our cultural narratives still reflect the idea that a woman’s status can be elevated by marrying a more successful man — and a man’s diminished by pairing with a more successful woman. Now that women are pulling ahead, the fairy tale has become increasingly unattainable. This development is causing both men and women to backslide to old gender stereotypes and creating a hostile division between them that provides fuel for the exploding manosphere. With so much turmoil in our collective love lives, it’s little wonder Americans are experiencing surging loneliness, declining birthrates and — as evidenced by Donald Trump’s popularity with young men — a cascade of resentment that threatens to reshape our democracy.

When we think of Prince Charming, most of us probably picture a Disney figure with golden epaulets and great hair. In the Brothers Grimm version of “Cinderella,” he is called simply “the prince,” and neither his looks nor his personality receive even a passing mention. In fact, we learn nothing about him except for the only thing that matters: He has the resources to give Cinderella a far better life than the one she is currently living. Throughout much of Western literature, this alone qualified as a happy ending, given that a woman’s security and sometimes her survival were dependent on marrying a man who could materially support her.

Recently, men’s and women’s fortunes have been trending in opposite directions. Women’s college enrollment first eclipsed men’s around 1980, but in the past two decades or so this gap has become a chasm. In 2022, men made up only 42 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds at four-year schools, and their graduation rates were lower than women’s as well. Since 2019, there have been more college-educated women in the work force than men.

Cinderella may now have her own castle — single women are also exceeding single men in rates of homeownership — but she is unlikely to be scouring the village for a hot housekeeper with a certain shoe size. A 2016 study in The Journal of Marriage and Family suggests that even when economic pressure to marry up is lower, cultural pressure to do so goes nowhere. A recent paper from economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found that since the 1960s, when women’s educational attainment and work force participation first began to surge, Americans’ preference for marrying someone of equal or greater education and income has grown significantly.

Our modern fairy tales — romantic comedies — reflect this reality, promoting the fantasy that every woman should have a fulfilling, lucrative career … and also a husband who is doing just a little better than she is. In 2017, a Medium article analyzed 32 rom-coms from the 1990s and 2000s and discovered that while all starred smart, ambitious women, only four featured a woman with a higher-status job than her male love interest.

Straight men may not be taking their cues from old Sandra Bullock movies, but their preferred relationships also mirror the rom-com ideal. A 2019 study by the economist Joanna Syrda found that husbands were happiest when their wives contributed 40 percent of the family’s income. Any percentage above this threshold, however, increased their anxiety.

In 2014, I had a brief stint working for a men’s dating coach, an experience that would eventually inspire me to write a play. At the time, it seemed like certain gender norms in romance might be changing. For the clients who sought out this coach, a central concern was how to act like a “real man” without offending modern women. Should they make the first move? Should they pay for a date? Ten years and multiple feminist movements later, members of Gen Z still expect men to pick up the check.

The male breadwinner norm has become a kind of cultural anchor that keeps us going around in circles, returning again and again to the gender dynamics we have tried to leave behind.

Case in point: Women’s growing success, coupled with the belief that a male partner must always be more successful, gives the shrinking pool of more successful men tremendous power. In 2017, researchers at the University of Utah found that in unbalanced populations, “the more common sex must cater to the preferences of the rarer sex in order to acquire a mate.” This could explain why today social media is rife with male fantasies, from beautiful, submissive “tradwives” to the hyper-feminine sorority pledges of “Bama Rush.” It could also explain why, alongside popular hashtags like #marryup and #richmen, another trending topic for women is celibacy.

And while a small group of #richmen may be reaping the benefits, many others find themselves shut out. According to Richard Reeves, whose book “Of Boys and Men” explores the reasons behind the growing gender achievement gap, heterosexual men who fall behind their female peers often experience a hit to both their romantic prospects and their sense of identity, leaving them searching for ways to affirm their manhood.

Enter the manosphere: a space occupied by new media podcasters and their favored politicians who win eyeballs, votes and dollars by selling a retrograde version of masculinity as the fix for men’s woes. In the final month of his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump skipped traditional outlets for a manosphere media blitz, which many credit for his 14-point lead among young men. While so-called female gold diggers are an obsession of the manosphere, much of its content reinforces the male-breadwinner norm — tying money to manliness and women’s preference for providers to biology.

Romantic pessimism pervades the manosphere, which puts forth that dating is doomed, and modern women are not to be trusted. Modern women feel similarly despondent. The Cut ran an article this summer asking straight women: “Is Dating a Total Nightmare for You Right Now?” It received so many furious, affirmative responses, the site published a digest of the most representative and depressing comments soon after.

All this is contributing to a larger “epidemic of loneliness,” to use the words of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who believes this problem is wreaking havoc on both our emotional and physical health. Last year, 41 percent of single people had no interest in dating at all, as reported by The Survey Center on American Life, an alarming statistic for those worried about U.S. marriage rates and birthrates, which are already at or near historic lows.

The manosphere would have us believe that this situation was inevitable, that women have emasculated men with their success and now complain that there aren’t enough real men to go around. In truth, our culture is broken because while we have acknowledged the limiting nature of the peasant-to-princess story line, we have not done the same for the prince. Over the past 60 years, as girls and women have fought their way into classrooms and boardrooms, society has expanded its idea of womanhood accordingly, yet our definition of manhood has failed to evolve alongside it.

Letting go of the male breadwinner norm is not an instant fix for our culture, but we can’t move forward without that step. After all, “breadwinner” is not only a limiting identity; it’s also a relative one. If we don’t release men from the expectation, any plan to help them regain lost ground will have to also ensure that women never catch up.

This zero-sum paradigm has always been a feature of Trumpism, which is all about keeping resources with the right kind of people. But if we are willing to reject the manosphere’s narrow ideas of masculinity, we will find that it is possible for both men and women to thrive at the same time — in work and in love. This future is ours to create. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s a fairy tale.
 
A recent paper from economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found that since the 1960s, when women’s educational attainment and work force participation first began to surge, Americans’ preference for marrying someone of equal or greater education and income has grown significantly.
Men are the faggots who believe in true love.

Women believe they can always do better.
Case in point: Women’s growing success, coupled with the belief that a male partner must always be more successful, gives the shrinking pool of more successful men tremendous power.
Women would rather share a winner than have a loser all to themselves.

The rich men (north of Richmond or not) understand that saying 'I do' puts them on the hook for their precious wealth. When you're Jeff Bezos rich, MacKenzie leaving with half really doesn't mean much except to your accountant(s) and lawyer(s).
Enter the manosphere: a space occupied by new media podcasters and their favored politicians who win eyeballs, votes and dollars by selling a retrograde version of masculinity as the fix for men’s woes.
If women can fantasize about getting a 'prince' why can't men fantasize about getting a 'princess'?
The manosphere would have us believe that this situation was inevitable, that women have emasculated men with their success
What success is that? Successfully making themselves concubines of a corporate sultan? Getting a check every two weeks does not a success make.

You are only 'successful' in corporate America if you walk in to your boss' office to tell him you're leaving, and he offers you more money rather than a box to pack your stuff in.
Over the past 60 years, as girls and women have fought their way into classrooms and boardrooms, society has expanded its idea of womanhood accordingly
Yes, to the point that 'women' can now have penises and beards.

Maybe they had a few things right 60 years ago.
 
Letting go of the male breadwinner norm is not an instant fix for our culture, but we can’t move forward without that step. After all, “breadwinner” is not only a limiting identity; it’s also a relative one. If we don’t release men from the expectation, any plan to help them regain lost ground will have to also ensure that women never catch up.
Uhhh no.
Who the fuck is going to pay the bills when women take maternity leave/leave the workforce to raise kids?
The number of dudes wanting to be "stay-at-home dads" is infinitesimally small and women are better off being the ones at home (after birth recovery/breastfeeding).

Stop forcing these shitty non solutions on us.
How about design a system where everyone's not struggling to afford anything so that there isn't insane financial pressures on people trying to date/marry/have kids?

Why the fuck you need 2 incomes now just to struggle to afford a house?
This is bullshit.
Stop blaming everyone for retarded economic stresses outside of our control.
 
The entirety of this article fails to address the elephant in the room: Women won't even consider men they see beneath them. Until that changes all these "new masculinity" movements will continue to fail to gain any traction. Maybe if you stopped shooting yourself in the foot you could walk to where you want to be.

Many argue that a generation of men are resentful because they have fallen behind women in work and school.
This is one of the greatest problems with these people. Men haven't fallen behind, men were forced to fail, and excluded, to give women a leg up. For regular education, to college, to the work environment and the law. Everything done over the last 50 to 70 years has been about benefiting women at the expense of men. To the point some nations make it a law that a corporation has to have so many women on its board of directors to remain in business.

and — as evidenced by Donald Trump’s popularity with young men — a cascade of resentment that threatens to reshape our democracy.
If the system will not serve the interests of its most important members, it deserves to be reshaped to serve them. If it won't be reshaped, it deserves to be burned down.

by selling a retrograde version of masculinity as the fix for men’s woes.
Yes, keep labeling this nascent men's movement as retrograde, and dismiss it. Young men will continue to drift right, and you will continue to lose relevance. So long.

Over the past 60 years, as girls and women have fought their way into classrooms and boardrooms, society has expanded its idea of womanhood accordingly, yet our definition of manhood has failed to evolve alongside it.
And if that definition of manhood changed to be more equal, more accepting of men, who don't bend over for women. All that progress would be reversed over night. You need the old obligations to remain in place, but you refuse to restore the old benefits. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
 
The entirety of this article fails to address the elephant in the room: Women won't even consider men they see beneath them. Until that changes all these "new masculinity" movements will continue to fail to gain any traction. Maybe if you stopped shooting yourself in the foot you could walk to where you want to be.
Yeah, it's wild how many women get kinda haughty over certifications and perceived social status, then wonder why men who they consider equal to them just go for women they perceive as beneath them.

It feels like they're stuck in high school era thinking.
This is one of the greatest problems with these people. Men haven't fallen behind, men were forced to fail, and excluded, to give women a leg up. For regular education, to college, to the work environment and the law. Everything done over the last 50 to 70 years has been about benefiting women at the expense of men. To the point some nations make it a law that a corporation has to have so many women on its board of directors to remain in business.
Yeah, if it were equal then both ends would get a boost. But men get so much shit for not being willing to put up with bullshit while women often get told that they deserve more.

If the system will not serve the interests of its most important members, it deserves to be reshaped to serve them. If it won't be reshaped, it deserves to be burned down.
The amount of women who still don't get why all this happened is fucking funny.

A century ago, they'd have been running around saying shit like "lips that touch wine will not touch mine" or something akin to that.
Yes, keep labeling this nascent men's movement as retrograde, and dismiss it. Young men will continue to drift right, and you will continue to lose relevance. So long.
They think you can relabel and bully reality into changing.
And if that definition of manhood changed to be more equal, more accepting of men, who don't bend over for women. All that progress would be reversed over night. You need the old obligations to remain in place, but you refuse to restore the old benefits. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
Well that's because there's not enough men they see as equals to go around.
 
1733100355215.png
THIS IS ALL TRUMP'S FAULT!
 
Case in point: Women’s growing success, coupled with the belief that a male partner must always be more successful, gives the shrinking pool of more successful men tremendous power.
Weird to see Sarah Bernstein from The NY Times just casually bring up hypergamy.
 
But if we are willing to reject the manosphere’s narrow ideas of masculinity, we will find that it is possible for both men and women to thrive at the same time — in work and in love. This future is ours to create. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s a fairy tale.
What are men supposed to do exactly? "Vote for the right party" and hope that women will magically find it a desirable trait?
 
Really? "Dating culture" leads to people voting Orange Man? Not the economy going crappy, the housing crisis, unrestricted mass immigration, leftist-run cities turning into dystopian hellscapes, "identitiy politics" infiltrating education and business, "The New Normal" BS, the endless demonizing of white males, and maybe also "dating culture"?
 
our cultural narratives still reflect the idea that a woman’s status can be elevated by marrying a more successful man
Because she can.
In the Brothers Grimm version of “Cinderella,” he is called simply “the prince,” and neither his looks nor his personality receive even a passing mention. In fact, we learn nothing about him except for the only thing that matters: He has the resources to give Cinderella a far better life than the one she is currently living. Throughout much of Western literature, this alone qualified as a happy ending
The Prince is the PRIZE for her good behaviour you idiot.
Letting go of the male breadwinner norm is not an instant fix for our culture, but we can’t move forward without that step. After all, “breadwinner” is not only a limiting identity; it’s also a relative one. If we don’t release men from the expectation, any plan to help them regain lost ground will have to also ensure that women never catch up.
And here’s the crux of the article.
‘Letting go of (thing that’s worked forever) will be hard but we can’t progress without it!’ It’s just another article forcing you to accept the inevitability of a bad change.
Letting go of homogenous societies will be hard but Europe cannot survive without it (to paraphrase Barbara spectre.)
When you see phrases like this prepare to be screwed over. Here it’s to get you to think that the idea of one wage earner being able to support a family is a silly old fashioned notion. Men? Well you shouldn’t expect to be able to do that, lower your expectations.
 
I have never heard a young man complain "I wouldn't date her, she's got a better job than me!"

Their complaints are based on high body count, fear of false harassment or even rape charges, and unrealistic financial demands and/or expectations. "Gold-digger" videos have whipped this resentment into a new high. You guys do know a lot of those "gold-digger" videos are fake, right?
 
cultural narratives
Why are SJWs so fixated on "culture" anyway?

"The article is sanewashing incels; bad men are supposed to be alone".
"sanewashing" = attempted brainwashing?
"incels" = dissenters "wrongthinkers" ?
"bad men" = dissenters "wrongthinkers"?

FFS I'm getting really tired of SJW doublespeak.
 
Last edited:
Back