The latest research argues that a specific condition—romantic and economic insecurity among never‑married men without a college degree—has helped fuel anti‑feminist attitudes and, in turn, support for the Republican Party and Donald Trump. The study, published in Political Research Quarterly, labels this dynamic a “mate‑value backlash” rather than a simple longing for traditional gender roles.
Scholars have long noted a global rise in right‑wing populism, often framed as a cultural backlash to progressive social change. A 2019 theory described this shift as voters reacting to evolving social values, a narrative echoed by previous analyses suggesting Trump supporters displayed higher modern sexism after the 2016 election.
Separately, researchers have considered how shifts in dating and marriage markets intersect with politics. When manufacturing jobs were displaced by global competition, young men’s earnings fell relative to young women’s, and marriage rates declined. A 2021 German study even found that men worried refugees would jeopardise their chances of finding a partner were more supportive of hate crimes against refugees.
Led by Stan Oklobdzija of the University of California, Riverside, and Christopher Witko of the University of California, Davis, the research team aimed to fuse these strands of inquiry. They proposed that the political right is now benefiting from a specific phenomenon they term “mate‑value backlash.”
Mate value refers to a person’s overall desirability as a romantic partner. As women gain economic independence and surpass men in college attendance, the study suggests, women are less dependent on men for financial security. Men who lack a college degree then face stiffer competition in both the labour market and the dating pool. This perceived loss of status and accompanying romantic insecurity, the authors argue, fuels resentment toward feminism and gender equality.
To test their hypothesis, the researchers analysed data from the American National Election Studies, focusing on male respondents. The data were divided into two periods: 1970–2012, before Donald Trump entered presidential politics, and 2016–2024, during his years as the Republican nominee.
The main measure of anti‑feminist attitudes was a “feeling thermometer”—a 0 to 100 scale where respondents rate their warmth toward feminists. A lower score signals greater antipathy, and the models controlled for age, White identity, and party affiliation.
In the 1970–2012 window, negative feelings toward feminists consistently predicted voting for Republican presidential candidates. However, never‑married men without a college education did not generally display higher anti‑feminist hostility than other men, with the notable exception of 1992, the so‑called “Year of the Woman.”
By 2016, never‑married men without a degree did not differ from their college‑educated peers. But in the 2020 and 2024 surveys, these men reported substantially higher hostility toward feminists, rating them about 10 points lower on the 100‑point scale. The authors interpret this as aligning with mate‑value backlash and suggest Trump’s emergence may have activated these attitudes.
Furthermore, hostility toward feminists strongly predicted voting for Donald Trump among men in 2016, 2020 and 2024, even after accounting for party identification. The authors caution that their estimates are likely underestimates because such attitudes can shape party identity itself, with stronger predictive power in 2020 than in 2016.
The findings echo earlier PsyPost coverage of a 2017 study linking hostile attitudes toward women with greater support for Trump, though that prior work used a smaller sample of college students rather than a nationally representative survey. They also resonate with a 2026 study indicating that sexist attitudes strongly predict support for right‑wing candidates.
“The findings from this research replicate a well established link between anti‑feminist attitudes and conservative voting behavior,” said Rachael Robnett, a professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and director of the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada, who was not involved in the study. “The results extend existing work by demonstrating a rise in anti‑feminist attitudes among unmarried men without college degrees, with this rise appearing to coincide with Donald Trump’s presidential terms.”
Robnett added that “the authors speculate that contemporary conservative rhetoric may have activated anti‑feminist sentiment among unmarried [men] with lower levels of education.” She noted that the speculation aligns with research focusing on the manosphere, a loose constellation of online communities often sceptical about gender equality and sometimes overtly hostile toward women.
As with all research, the authors emphasise caveats. The data are correlational and cannot establish causation, and the study measures attitudes toward “feminists,” a broad and politicised term whose interpretation may vary. Wording changes over time complicate comparisons; earlier surveys asked about “the women’s liberation movement,” before shifting to “the women’s movement” and ultimately “feminists.”
Robnett also stressed that the study exclusively focuses on men. “It is entirely possible that anti‑feminist sentiment has also increased among unmarried women without college degrees, but this competing explanation cannot be examined when the research only focuses on men,” she said. She urged direct testing with both genders before drawing firmer conclusions about causality and scope.
The authors call for future work to explore how political rhetoric may activate these latent insecurities, including the potential role of Trump’s particular style of politics and the impact of online communities and social media in amplifying these feelings. Such work, they argue, would help illuminate how relationship dynamics shape national political outcomes.
The study, “Backlashes to Gender Equality and Authoritarian Populism in the U.S.,” was authored by Stan Oklobdzija and Christopher Witko.
