Heterofatalism: Feminist Madness or Cultural Collapse? By Mrs. Vera West and Mrs. (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)

The term heterofatalism is the latest feminist export from the grievance-industrial complex, an ideological upgrade from "men are trash" to "men have ruined straight love forever." Coined by UPenn's Asa Seresin and mainstreamed in The New York Times Magazine, it claims that modern heterosexual relationships are doomed because men are emotionally stunted, noncommittal, or just plain disappointing.

But is this really a revelation, or just feminist projection dressed up in academic jargon? Is heterofatalism a legitimate cultural critique, or simply feminism turning on the very men it helped destroy?

The Setup: Feminism Invents a New Complaint

Heterofatalism, a gloomier cousin of "heteropessimism," isn't about a bad Tinder date or a flaky boyfriend. It's a sweeping ideology: women are doomed to suffer in straight relationships because of men's emotional incompetence. In Garnett's piece, she recounts dates ruined by "anxiety," partners uninterested in commitment, and vague emotional signals that force women to do all the interpretive work, a task dubbed "hermeneutic labour" by philosopher Ellie Anderson. Another scholar, Sara Ahmed, calls complaints like these a form of feminist rebellion.

But step back. Are these symptoms of male pathology, or the predictable result of dismantling relationship norms, traditional masculinity, and social expectations over the last fifty years?

Feminism wanted men to be sensitive, emotionally expressive, less dominant, and now it complains that they're indecisive, confused, and noncommittal. It tore down marriage and courtship structures and now wrings its hands over hookup culture. It demanded female independence, then bemoans emotional loneliness. Heterofatalism is feminism mad at its own legacy.

The Narrative: Women as Eternal Victims

In this feminist script, men are the culprits, and women are exhausted caregivers doing the emotional heavy lifting, organising plans, soothing egos, and decoding ambiguous texts from man boys in hoodies. Stanford's Angelica Puzio Ferrara even calls it "man keeping."

But there's a stunning lack of introspection. Garnett left her marriage for a man who wasn't interested in her. That's not male failure, that's a self-made choice. Yet it's framed as more evidence of patriarchy's emotional collapse.

Critics like Rikki Schlott rightly note the narcissism here: women making poor romantic choices, then blaming an entire gender for the fallout. Reddit users call Garnett a "walking red flag." She demands men read her mind, meet her unspoken needs, and stay within a pre-approved emotional range, or else she's a victim of structural oppression.

The Hypocrisy: Feminism Blames What It Broke

The manosphere's reaction is telling. Figures like Pearl Davis, even mainstream critics of feminism, argue that male withdrawal from relationships, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), isn't cowardice but self-preservation. Why invest in a dating culture where you're blamed, shamed, and legally exposed?

And yet, heterofatalism refuses to ask what men get out of relationships anymore. It presumes they owe women emotional support, presence, attentiveness, but receive what in return? Mockery in media, legal risk in family courts, and now, philosophical theories blaming them for female loneliness.

Men face an epidemic of loneliness, with 15% reporting no close friends. They suffer from collapsing academic achievement, rising suicide rates, and dwindling purpose. But these aren't headline-worthy. Instead, elite feminism obsesses over how exhausting it is to talk to men.

The Real Crisis: Cultural Atomisation

Heterofatalism is bigger than dating, it's a symptom of a disintegrating social order. Its origins in elite academia (funded by taxpayers) show how cultural decay begins: ideology replaces reason, theory replaces responsibility, and victimhood replaces self-awareness.

Women who vent about flaky men online are echoing a broader malaise, one also seen in collapsing urban cores, rising mental illness, political polarisation, and fertility rates below replacement. The social contract is breaking down, and instead of rebuilding trust between men and women, feminism is busy torching the last remaining bridges.

Movements like South Korea's 4B, where women swear off men, marriage, sex, and children, aren't empowering. They're a death knell. Post-2024, many feminist thinkers doubled down, insisting that men's political views and emotional shortcomings made them irredeemable. But if that's true, what future is left?

Conclusion: No More Isms — We Need Rebuilding

Heterofatalism names a real dissatisfaction but offers no real insight, let alone solutions. It's not a critique of masculinity, it's a tantrum against the consequences of feminist ideology. It casts women as helpless and men as hopeless, leaving both genders stranded in emotional exile.

If feminism had an ounce of the self-awareness it demands from men, it might ask: What did we expect would happen after decades of ideological sabotage?

Healthy relationships aren't found, they're built, by men and women working in good faith. But heterofatalism is faithless, loveless, and ultimately useless. Like ghost-town cities and surveillance-state laws, it's one more sign that the culture is broken, and that repair won't come from more slogans, but from rejecting the politics of blame and returning to the basics of respect, responsibility, and reality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/magazine/men-heterofatalism-dating-relationships.html