Gender as an intergroup construct

The target article frames men’s dependence as a product of socialization and biology but underplays its roots in gendered power structures (Connell & Messerschmidt, Reference Connell and Messerschmidt2005; Ridgeway & Correll, Reference Ridgeway and Correll2016). Men’s reliance on women is not just about access to intimacy or social support; it reflects broader structural arrangements that organize gendered life (Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2025; Schmader & Nater, Reference Schmader, Nater, Gilbert, Fiske, Finkel and Mendes2025). Unlike other intergroup contexts (e.g., race, ethnicity), gender relations uniquely combine unequal power with mutual dependence (Rudman & Glick, Reference Rudman and Glick2021). Patriarchy positions men as dominant (Buss, Reference Buss, Buss and Malamuth1996; Sidanius et al., Reference Sidanius, Hudson, Davis, Bergh, Mintz and Terris2018), yet men and women remain interdependent for reproduction, intimacy, and culturally prescribed roles (Wood & Eagly, Reference Wood and Eagly2002).

Gendered expectations are embedded across domains (Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2023), from workplace interactions to romantic relationships. These structures persist not only through oppression but also via cooperation that rewards conformity and penalizes deviation (Jackman, Reference Jackman1994; Rudman et al., Reference Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, Phelan, Devine and Plant2012). Because many gendered arrangements feel cooperative, familiar, or rewarding, they can appear natural or desirable (Brescoll, Uhlmann, & Newman, Reference Brescoll, Uhlmann and Newman2013; Jost & Kay, Reference Jost and Kay2005; Kray et al., Reference Kray, Howland, Russell and Jackman2017), reinforcing the status quo amid cultural shifts toward equality (England, Levine & Mishel, Reference England, Levine and Mishel2020).

The costs of men’s romantic dependence

The authors (partially) attribute men’s vulnerability to relationship dissolution to their heavy reliance on romantic partners for emotional support. However, emotional support presumes emotional sharing, which many men are socially discouraged from engaging in (Eagly et al., Reference Eagly, Nater, Miller, Kaufmann and Sczesny2020), even with close family (Cherry & Gerstein, Reference Cherry and Gerstein2021). Masculine norms that valorize self-sufficiency, stoicism, and control constrain men’s willingness and ability to express vulnerability – key to emotional reciprocity – and are linked to avoidant coping, reluctance to seek help, and poor relationship outcomes (for reviews, see Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2025; Levant, Reference Levant2017; for a meta-analysis, see Wong et al., Reference Wong, Ho, Wong and Miller2017). When masculinity is threatened, men often respond with stress and defensiveness, further distancing themselves emotionally and undermining intimacy (for reviews, see Vandello, Bosson, & Lawler, Reference Vandello, Bosson, Lawler, Griffith, Bruce and Thorpe2019; Vandello & Bosson, Reference Vandello and Bosson2013). The result is a relational paradox: men rely on partners for emotional support while being constrained from fully engaging in the mutuality such support requires. This mismatch creates intimacy asymmetries and communication barriers, increasing dependence while eroding relationship quality (e.g., McKenzie et al., Reference McKenzie, Collings, Jenkin and River2018; Nielson et al., Reference Nielson, Ward, Seabrook and Giaccardi2022).

Societal expectations also shape men’s attitudes toward romantic partners and women more broadly, often with harmful consequences. Gendered prejudice, in both hostile and benevolent forms (Glick & Fiske, Reference Glick and Fiske2001), undermines relational dynamics (for reviews, see Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2023; Hammond & Overall, Reference Hammond and Overall2017). Hostile sexism, marked by antagonism toward women who challenge traditional roles, is destructive for men in intimate relationships – fostering mistrust, conflict, and emotional withdrawal. Benevolent sexism, which idealizes women as pure and nurturing, deepens men’s emotional dependence on women while discouraging egalitarian partnerships. Although benevolent sexism may foster relational harmony within traditional frameworks (“getting along to go along”), it also imposes rigid expectations (e.g., men must protect or provide) and legitimizes unequal emotional labor (e.g., women should support their men partners; Ferrara & Vergara, Reference Ferrara and Vergara2024).

Men’s emotional support deficits reflect a broader disengagement from communal roles such as caregiving and cooperation, contributing to isolation and undermining well-being (for reviews, Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2025; Croft, Schmader, & Block, Reference Croft, Schmader and Block2015). Yet when men do engage communally (e.g., by expressing vulnerability, providing caregiving), they often face social penalties, such as being seen as weak, less competent, or unmasculine (e.g., Neuenswander, Haines, & Stroessner, Reference Neuenswander, Haines and Stroessner2023; Rudman & Mescher, Reference Rudman and Mescher2013; for reviews, see Moss-Racusin, Reference Moss-Racusin, Burke and Major2014; Rudman et al., Reference Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Glick, Phelan, Devine and Plant2012).

The benefits of romantic dependence and gendered expectations

Men’s dependence on relationships represents more than a stable snapshot of socialization processes; it is actively and dynamically reinforced by gender norms. Traditional masculinity discourages emotional expression while granting men social status for conforming to conventional roles, even when these roles limit emotional intimacy (Levant, Reference Levant2017). Although displaying behaviors that challenge such norms can trigger social backlash (Moss-Racusin, Reference Moss-Racusin, Burke and Major2014), role-consistent behaviors activate motivational and neuronal systems associated with reward learning (Mokady & Reggev, Reference Mokady and Reggev2022; Reggev, Chowdhary, & Mitchell, Reference Reggev, Chowdhary and Mitchell2021). When traditional interactions are experienced as more rewarding, they are remembered, repeated, and reinforced over time, creating a self-sustaining cycle of dependence (Kadwe et al., Reference Kadwe, Sklenar, Frankenstein, Levy and Leshikar2022; Reggev, Reference Reggev2024; Saguy, Reifen-Tagar, & Joel, Reference Saguy, Reifen-Tagar and Joel2021).

The target article also frames men’s dependence as largely self-serving, emphasizing the benefits they derive from romantic partners such as improved health and domestic support. However, research shows egalitarian partnerships yield greater satisfaction for both partners (Carlson, Hanson, & Fitzroy, Reference Carlson, Hanson and Fitzroy2016; Rudman & Phelan, Reference Rudman and Phelan2007). Dependence is not just about what men gain; it also constrains heterosexual men’s capacity to support their women partners and build mutual intimacy (Clark & Mils, Reference Clark and Mils1993; Muise & Impett, Reference Muise and Impett2015). Responsive listening and mutual support facilitate dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Kuhn et al., Reference Kuhn, Bradbury, Nussbeck and Bodenmann2018). One-sided dependence thus weakens the relationship itself, depriving both partners of the intrinsic rewards of giving (Crocker, Canevello, & Brown, Reference Crocker, Canevello and Brown2017; Le et al., Reference Le, Impett, Kogan, Webster and Cheng2012).

To conclude, Wahring et al. rightly highlight men’s romantic dependence but understate the social-psychological forces that sustain this dependence and its associated costs and benefits. Integrating a perspective that accounts for gendered power structures and stereotype reinforcement offers a fuller understanding of why these dynamics persist.