Women’s autonomy in reproductive choice

The fertility crisis, as outlined by Larsen et al. (Reference Larsen, Fisher and Kennair2026), in many modern nations is closely tied to the increasing autonomy of women in mate selection, long-term coupling, and reproduction. As women gain greater control over their lives, they are making choices that often delay and reduce childbearing, contributing to declining fertility rates. This trend, while empowering and desirable for women from a liberal, egalitarian Western perspective, has significant implications for societal demographics and the traditional structures of family and reproduction.

One of the primary correlates of declining fertility rates is the growing gap between women’s ideal desired and actual number of children (Stone, Reference Stone2019; see also Larsen et al., Reference Larsen, Fisher and Kennair2026). This gap is attributed to several factors, including economic constraints, work-life balance challenges, and the difficulty of finding suitable partners (Esping-Andersen, Reference Esping-Andersen2009). This gap is also influenced by structural barriers, such as the high cost of childcare and housing, limited parental leave policies, and insufficient workplace flexibility, which make it difficult for women to reconcile career aspirations with family life (Matysiak et al., Reference Matysiak, Sobotka and Vignoli2021), presuming they want to have children. Further, societal expectations around intensive parenting and the rising costs of raising children may discourage women from achieving their desired family size (Lutz et al., Reference Lutz, Skirbekk and Testa2006). The importance of factors on declining fertility varies from country to country but still lead to decline (e.g., Roser, Reference Roser2014).

Women’s ability (and often necessity) to delay childbearing is closely linked to their advancements in education and economic independence. Research consistently shows that higher levels of education among women are associated with later marriage and childbirth (e.g., South Korea, Choi, Reference Choi2018). For example, Goldin and Katz (Reference Goldin and Katz2002) argue that the introduction of reliable contraceptives, such as the birth control pill, allowed women to invest in their education and careers, altering the timing and structure of family formation. While these trends reflect progress in gender equality, they also create significant disharmony with societal expectations around reproduction, as well as with physiological constraints such as fertility windows. Women are often expected to balance their personal and professional aspirations with the traditional role of motherhood, which can lead to delayed and foregone childbearing. The costs of such delays are not minor; postponing childbirth is associated with reduced overall fertility and potential health risks for both mother and child (Schmidt et al., Reference Schmidt, Sobotka, Bentzen and Nyboe Andersen2012). It should also be noted that women’s balancing of professional achievement with having children does not mean they are necessarily working more than their partners. For example, in egalitarian countries like Norway, data suggest that while women and men may work similar total hours when combining paid and unpaid labor, men often bear a heavier work burden overall (Kitterød & Rønsen, Reference Kitterød and Rønsen2017).

These changes are argued to have, overall, influenced women’s mate selection. Larsen et al. (Reference Larsen, Fisher and Kennair2026) discuss how women’s autonomy in mate selection has reduced pair bonding, which in turn has led to fewer couples and, thereby, fewer childbirths. Women’s growing economic independence has significantly influenced the processes underlying mate selection. Historically, women’s reliance on men for material security often shaped their preferences for partners who could provide resources and stability for themselves, as well as any children (Buss, Reference Buss1989). However, as women have gained access to education and entered the workforce in greater numbers, their reliance on male partners for economic support has diminished (but not necessarily vanished, see Bertrand et al., Reference Bertrand, Kamenica and Pan2015). Whether women are downgrading how important a partner’s wealth is remains debated. For example, Fales et al. (Reference Fales, Frederick, Garcia, Gildersleeve, Haselton and Fisher2016) report that as women become wealthier, their preference for affluent mates increases, which would again decrease the potential mating pool (see also Buss & Shackelford, Reference Buss and Shackelford2008). What may be occurring, rather than a uniform decline in the importance of men’s resources, is a polarization of provisioning value. The economic contributions of low-SES men may no longer meet the threshold women require in a long-term partner, while the resources of high-status men may have become even more central to women’s mate preferences. Put simply, the value of modest provisioning has declined, while that of substantial provisioning has not.

Likewise, research by Kalmijn (Reference Kalmijn1994) found that as women’s educational attainment increases, they are more likely to seek partners with similar levels of education and intellectual compatibility, reflecting a shift toward assortative mating based on shared interests and values rather than economic necessity. This trend is particularly evident in societies with high levels of gender equality, where women have greater freedom to prioritize personal fulfillment in their relationships (Inglehart & Norris, Reference Inglehart and Norris2003). Some argue that the sought-after characteristics have changed; mutual attraction and love rose in importance as mate selection criteria for both women and men across the latter half of the twentieth century (Buss et al., Reference Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick and Larsen2001), and emotional intelligence has come to be treated as a substantive component of partner choice and partnership maintenance (Casey et al., Reference Casey, Garrett, Brackett, Rivers, Geher and Miller2008).

As a result of these developments, women frequently postpone marriage (or variations such as cohabitation with long-term mates) and starting a family, giving them more time to focus on their education, careers, and personal growth before committing to long-term relationships (Goldin & Katz, Reference Goldin and Katz2002). More colleges and universities in the USA have admitted women, with enrollment rates increasing over time (https://blackstone.edu/the-history-of-womens-education/ and https://www.samfunnsforskning.no/core/publikasjoner/grafiske/kjonn-og-utdanning/hovedfunnsgrafikk---kjonnsdelte-utdanningerutdanninger.pdf). In addition, these educated women are more interested in men who share similar levels of education and intellectual compatibility, particularly for long-term relationships. Research shows that both men and women prefer partners with similar educational backgrounds, as this alignment often leads to greater relationship stability and satisfaction (Jonason & Antoon, Reference Jonason and Antoon2019). Women, however, place a higher emphasis on education in their mate preferences compared to men, associating it with traits like competence, ambition, and the ability to provide social and economic stability (Sprecher et al., Reference Sprecher, Sullivan and Hatfield1994, see also Buss Reference Buss1989; Walter et al., Reference Walter, Conroy-Beam, Buss, Asao, Sorokowska, Sorokowski, Aavik, Akello, Alhabahba, Alm, Amjad, Anjum, Atama, Atamtürk Duyar, Ayebare, Batres, Bendixen, Bensafia, Bizumic and Siddiqui2020).

Consequently, women are increasingly selective in their mate choices, often waiting until they find a partner who meets their emotional and intellectual standards (we note that this situation may become bidirectional; as women age, they may be perceived as less physically attractive and less able to acquire their preferred mates; Kenrick & Keefe, Reference Kenrick and Keefe1992). As women achieve higher levels of education and income, the pool of potential partners who meet their criteria becomes smaller, leading to a “mating squeeze” (Van Bavel et al., Reference Van Bavel, Schwartz and Esteve2018), which is particularly noticeable in countries where women’s educational and professional achievements outpace those of men (Esteve et al., Reference Esteve, García-Román and Permanyer2012). This change reflects broader societal trends that prioritize personal happiness and self-actualization in relationships, aligning with the rise of what Giddens (Reference Giddens1992) calls “pure relationships”; unions based on emotional satisfaction rather than external pressures or constraints.

Online dating and social media represent interesting avenues for researchers to document these shifts in mate selection, as they expand access to potential partners and provide new tools for evaluating compatibility. Platforms like Hinge, Plenty of Fish, and Bumble allow women to filter potential matches based on specific criteria, such as shared interests, values, or physical attractiveness, giving them greater control over the selection process (Pruchniewska, Reference Pruchniewska2020). However, these technologies have also introduced new challenges, such as the tendency for women to prioritize physical attractiveness during the initial stages of online interactions, which may not always align with their long-term relationship goals (Finkel et al., Reference Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis and Sprecher2012; Larsen & Kennair, Reference Larsen and Kennair2025). Moreover, the visual and algorithmic nature of online dating platforms often amplifies existing preferences and biases, leading to greater stratification in the mating market. For example, research by Bruch and Newman (Reference Bruch and Newman2018) found that women on dating platforms tend to focus their attention on a small subset of highly desirable men, reflecting a pattern that can exacerbate inequalities in access to relationships.

While these trends are more pronounced in some countries than others, cross-cultural research indicates significant variations in women’s mate preferences (but see Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Jonason, Blackburn, Kennair, Lowe, Malouff, Stewart-Williams, Sulikowski and Li2020). In collectivist cultures, family and community considerations often play a larger role in mate selection, with women prioritizing traits such as familial approval and social harmony over individual preferences (Buunk et al., Reference Buunk, Park and Duncan2010). However, even in these contexts, the global spread of education and economic opportunities for women is gradually reshaping some traditional mate selection practices, leading to greater emphasis on personal compatibility and shared values (Inglehart & Norris, Reference Inglehart and Norris2003; see Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Jonason, Blackburn, Kennair, Lowe, Malouff, Stewart-Williams, Sulikowski and Li2020). Thus, as traditional pair-bonding rates decline (Davidson & Hannaford, Reference Davidson and Hannaford2022) and fewer women find partners who meet their standards (Van Bavel et al., Reference Van Bavel, Schwartz and Esteve2018), individualistic reproduction is emerging as a potential solution to the fertility crisis. Larsen et al. (Reference Larsen, Fisher and Kennair2026) suggest that providing women with the resources to pursue single parenthood could help address declining fertility rates. This approach reflects broader societal changes, where women are increasingly choosing to remain single or have children on their own rather than lowering their mate standards or conforming to traditional family models.

Put another way, the individualization of reproduction raises important questions about the social and economic support some women need to make such choices viable. For example, while single parenthood offers women greater autonomy, it also comes with significant financial and social challenges. Governments would need to invest in robust support systems, such as affordable childcare, housing, and financial incentives, to make single parenthood a realistic and appealing option for more women. Intentional communities or cohousing, where single mothers can share resources and support one another in raising children, could alleviate some of the burdens of single parenthood by providing a built-in support network and reducing the isolation often associated with raising children alone. Or, women can turn to advances in reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), egg freezing, and sperm donation, decoupling reproduction from traditional pair bonding. The use of donor sperm for single women and same-sex couples has increased significantly in recent years, reflecting changing attitudes toward family formation (Bitan et al., Reference Bitan, Kedem, Avraham, Yerushalmi, Youngster, Hourvitz and Gat2024; Diego et al., Reference Diego, Yost, Buyuk and Jindal2024; Tober, Reference Tober2018). These innovations raise many ethical and economic questions, as access is often limited to those who can afford the high costs (Pennings & Elenis, Reference Pennings and Elenis2024). However, for many women, these technologies offer a means to preserve the opportunity for parenthood. Baldwin et al. (Reference Baldwin, Culley, Hudson and Mitchell2019) interviewed 31 women who engaged in egg freezing and found that their motives centered around fears of running out of time to form a family, difficulties in finding a suitable partner, worries about “panic partnering” to avoid delaying further, as well as concerns about future regret and blame. The authors conclude that their study, “…identifies how women’s use of egg freezing was an attempt to preserve fertility in the absence of the particular set of life conditions they regarded as crucial for pursuing parenthood” (Baldwin et al., Reference Baldwin, Culley, Hudson and Mitchell2019, p. 170). Hertz (Reference Hertz2006) documents this shift in her exploration of single mothers by choice, noting that these women are actively constructing families to align with their values and circumstances. This trend is already evident in many high-income nations.

These ideas are further discussed in Larsen et al.’s (Reference Larsen, Fisher and Kennair2026) call for experimentation with new social structures to address the fertility crisis. Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen2009) reviews how social policies that promote collective caregiving and shared resources can help mitigate the challenges of modern family life, particularly for single parents.

Evolutionary psychological views of gender roles

Evolutionary psychology provides a framework for understanding how historical gender roles emerged in response to survival pressures, offering a look into the cooperative roles of men in early human societies. While traditional gender roles often positioned men as protectors and providers, they also played critical roles in promoting group cohesion, collective problem-solving, and intergroup cooperation. For example, men frequently engaged in cooperative hunting, which required strategic planning, communication, and trust among group members to ensure success and resource sharing (Hill, Reference Hill2002; Hawkes et al., Reference Hawkes, O’Connell and Blurton Jones2001). These activities provided sustenance and strengthened social bonds and group stability. Moreover, men exhibit greater variability in cooperative behaviors, ranging from altruistic contributions to competitive strategies, depending on the social context (Thöni et al., Reference Thöni, Volk and Cortina2021). This flexibility allowed men to adapt to diverse environmental and social challenges. Further, intergroup competition often amplified male cooperation within groups, as men worked together to defend resources and territory or to achieve collective goals (van Vugt et al., Reference Van Vugt, De Cremer and Janssen2007).

This perspective provides a novel way to understand the challenges men face in adapting to modern societal shifts. Traditional gender roles, shaped by evolutionary selection pressures, often positioned men as protectors and providers, while women’s roles encompassed caregiving, resource acquisition, and social cohesion (Hrdy, Reference Hrdy2009; van Vugt & Von Rueden, Reference van Vugt and von Rueden2020; see for application to leadership van Vugt & Smith, Reference Van Vugt and Smith2019). These roles were not rigid but rather adaptive strategies that varied across environmental and cultural contexts. When women in early human societies contributed significantly to subsistence activities (e.g., Hawkes et al., Reference Hawkes, O’Connell and Blurton Jones2001; Hurtado et al., Reference Hurtado, Hawkes, Hill and Kaplan1985; Zihlman, Reference Zihlman1978), these activities required strategic decision-making, cooperation, and leadership, meaning women were not solely nurturing caregivers (Hrdy, Reference Hrdy2009).

Evolutionary psychology rests on the tenets of sexual selection, which emphasizes traits that enhance reproductive success. Historically, men’s ability to provide resources and protection was pivotal to women’s mate selection, particularly in environments where survival depended on physical security and resource acquisition. However, as societal structures have evolved and women’s economic independence has grown, mate preferences are shifting. Mutual attraction and love rose in importance for both sexes across the latter half of the twentieth century, while the importance attached to a partner’s economic status and domestic skills moved in different directions for men and women (Buss et al., Reference Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick and Larsen2001). Moore et al. (Reference Moore, Cassidy, Law Smith and Perrett2006) further report that as women gain control over resources, they place less emphasis on a partner’s resource-acquisition characteristics (e.g., financial prospects) and more on traits like physical attractiveness. Stone et al. (Reference Stone, Shackelford and Buss2008) find that a country’s level of socioeconomic development is correlated with women’s mate preferences. They document that women place more importance on mutual attraction and love in developed nations, compared to countries with less development, which may be linked to economic autonomy. Importantly, these shifts are not absolute but environmentally contingent, as preferences for protection and resource provision may remain relevant in contexts of economic or physical insecurity (Lu et al., Reference Lu, Zhu and Chang2015; Snyder et al., Reference Snyder, Fessler, Tiokhin, Frederick, Lee and Navarrete2011).

The growing economic autonomy of women and their access to leadership roles have diminished the traditional utility of men as providers and protectors in many contexts, leaving some men struggling to redefine their identities in a rapidly changing social context. For low-SES men in particular, those without the buffer of wealth, education, or social status, the consequences are especially acute. Unable to fall back on stable incomes to support a mate and children, such men are unlikely to be selected as partners and face further social exclusion with fewer opportunities for upward mobility (Kulik, Reference Kulik2000). As women achieve higher education and income, they tend to seek partners with similar or higher SES, narrowing the pool of eligible men further (Van Bavel et al., Reference Van Bavel, Schwartz and Esteve2018). Evolutionary psychology suggests that this mismatch between traditional male roles and modern mate selection criteria contributes to the marginalization of some men who then find themselves excluded from pair-bonding opportunities and, potentially, other forms of romantic and sexual relations (Costello et al., Reference Costello, Rolon, Thomas and Schmitt2024).

The expectation that men should adapt by embracing more cooperative and nurturing behaviors runs up against a formidable obstacle. Hegemonic masculinity, the cultural complex of norms equating manhood with dominance, stoicism, and economic provision, stigmatizes men who deviate from traditional roles, reinforcing rather than alleviating feelings of marginalization (Connell, Reference Connell2005). For men lacking the buffer of wealth or status, this situation creates a genuine bind in which the roles that once conferred reproductive and social advantages are no longer sufficient, while the traits now socially valued carry their own penalties. An evolved heritage shaped over millennia is not easily or quickly set aside.

Women, by contrast, have a long evolutionary history of role flexibility. In early human societies, women were not solely caregivers but contributed to subsistence activities, gathering and processing food that provided the majority of the group’s caloric intake, while simultaneously managing caregiving, resource distribution, and social cohesion (van Vugt & Von Rueden, Reference van Vugt and von Rueden2020; Zihlman, Reference Zihlman1978). Among the Batek hunter-gatherers of Malaysia, women played central roles in decision-making and resource distribution within a gender-egalitarian social structure (Endicott & Endicott, Reference Endicott and Endicott2008). In comparing Batek foragers with Tsimane horticulturalists, women’s cooperative labor networks extended beyond kinship ties to facilitate food sharing, childcare, and conflict resolution, bolstering group stability (Kraft et al., Reference Kraft, Cummings, Venkataraman, Alami, Beheim, Hooper, Seabright, Trumble, Stieglitz, Kaplan, Endicott, Endicott and Gurven2023). Women’s leadership in these contexts drew on empathy, social intelligence, and the capacity to manage social networks, traits that Konner (Reference Konner2015) argues remain highly relevant in modern organizational contexts where collaboration and inclusivity are increasingly valued. This historical pattern of adaptability, balancing caregiving with resource acquisition and leadership, mirrors the dual demands women continue to face today (Fedigan, Reference Fedigan1986; Hrdy, Reference Hrdy2009). Even in the most gender-egalitarian societies, the burden of caregiving remains unequally distributed: across the Nordic countries, fathers take between 10% and 30% of available parental leave, depending on national policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2019), suggesting that women’s adaptability has not translated into relief from traditional responsibilities.

But there is a cost to women. While their adaptability and leadership traits have historically been advantageous for individual and group survival, these same qualities often come with burdens for women. As women increasingly take on leadership roles and gain economic independence, they are often expected to shoulder the dual responsibilities of professional success and traditional caregiving roles. Moreover, the mating crisis signals another cost to women: the narrowing pool of potential partners who meet their standards for long-term partnering. That is, women’s historical reliance on men as protectors and providers in many societies has been disrupted for some, where women’s economic independence and access to education have diminished the traditional utility of these roles. This shift has led to what some scholars describe as a “crisis of masculinity,” where men struggle to redefine their roles in response to changing definitions of femininity and societal expectations (Kimmel, Reference Kimmel and Brod1987). Just as women have historically adapted to changing societal demands, men now face the challenge of redefining their roles.

The politics of gender and reproduction

In many modern Western societies, and particularly since industrialization, political and social systems have reinforced the idea of women as inherently nurturing to maintain patriarchal structures (Badinter, Reference Badinter1982). By framing caregiving and reproduction as natural extensions of femininity, these systems confined women to domestic roles, limiting their participation in public and economic spheres. This alignment of gender norms with reproductive roles has been deeply embedded in cultural, legal, and religious institutions (Badinter, Reference Badinter1982). For example, patriarchal systems have relied on the unpaid labor of women in caregiving and household management, which is essential to the functioning of capitalist economies but remains undervalued (Waters, Reference Waters1989). This unpaid labor not only sustains families but also subsidizes the broader economy by reducing the costs of social reproduction.

However, patriarchal systems are not static; they adapt to economic and social changes while maintaining control over women’s roles in reproduction and caregiving. As Waters (Reference Waters1989) explains, these systems have historically changed to accommodate shifts in labor markets and family structures, ensuring their persistence even as women have gained greater access to education and employment. For example, the rise of dual-income households has not eliminated the expectation that women bear the primary responsibility for caregiving, instead creating a “second shift” that reinforces traditional gender norms such that women work two “shifts”—one to care for family and the second to work outside the home (Hochschild & Machung, Reference Hochschild and Machung2012). Contemporary data from the USA validate this persistence. Even with the rise of dual-income families, where nearly half of all married-couple households feature two employed spouses (49.6%), and in nearly 23.4% of these families only one spouse is employed (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025), the burden of unpaid labor remains unequally distributed. This trend is consistent with labor patterns; although dual-earner arrangements have become commonplace, traditional divisions of domestic responsibilities endure. While there is evidence to suggest that male partners tend to engage in more household labor when both partners have high incomes (e.g., Australia; Yu et al., Reference Yu, Smith and Dimotakis2025), findings show that women, on average, perform approximately two-thirds of household labor in dual-income households (OECD, 2025) and continue to provide twice as much childcare as men (Glynn et al., Reference Glynn, Vega Varela and Moridi2024). Moreover, 73.7% of mothers are in the labor force compared to 94.9% of fathers, potentially signaling gender gaps in paid employment (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2025). This difference is also evident in self-report patterns of leisure, with women having approximately 13% less free time than men (based on the American Time Use Survey; Glynn et al., Reference Glynn, Vega Varela and Moridi2024). Longitudinal analyses indicate that, despite incremental progress, women’s unpaid care and domestic work have not decreased at a proportional rate relative to their gains in the workforce (World Economic Forum, 2025). While women’s participation in paid labor has increased, the enduring expectation to manage domestic responsibilities has remained.

Transition to new norms is often met with resistance, as cultural and institutional inertia can slow the pace of change. Traditional gender roles remain deeply embedded in societal structures, influencing workplace policies and cultural practices. For example, workplace policies that inadequately support parental leave for fathers may perpetuate the perception that caregiving is primarily a feminine responsibility, thereby limiting men’s participation in family life (Hochschild & Machung, Reference Hochschild and Machung2012). Similarly, cultural practices that equate masculinity with dominance and economic provisioning can create barriers for men who wish to adopt caregiving roles, as they may face stigma or marginalization (Connell, Reference Connell2005). Despite these obstacles, change can happen: Norway’s introduction of the “father’s quota,” a non-transferable portion of parental leave reserved exclusively for fathers, provides one example. Today, over 90% of eligible Norwegian fathers take their allotted leave, with many reporting that it has become a strong cultural expectation (Day, Reference Day2025). Such policies demonstrate that institutional support can play a central role in shaping gender roles that lead to more egalitarianism. The challenge lies in navigating this period of transition, where old norms are being questioned, but new ones have yet to be fully established.

While such developments are commendable, it is worth questioning whether these new gender roles will resolve any of the challenges posed by the mating crisis. Men might adapt by embracing more nurturing and cooperative roles, but this perspective may underestimate the evolutionarily beneficial preferences that shape partner selection. This shift also raises questions about the other side of the equation: how women’s changing roles and expectations might create mismatches with what men seek in mates? Research suggests that men often prioritize traits such as physical attractiveness and youth (Buss, Reference Buss1989), and a potential mismatch arises when the traits that women “offer,” such as professional success and independence, are not necessarily the traits that men prioritize most in a partner. Here, too, gender egalitarianism also has a role; Kalmijn (Reference Kalmijn2013) reports that in a sample of 25 European countries, more highly educated women were less likely to be married than those less educated if gender roles were traditional, while the reverse is seen in gender-egalitarian countries.

For women who are not independently affluent or well educated, economic provision may remain an important criterion in partner selection alongside traits such as emotional intelligence and shared values, though the relative weight of these preferences warrants further research. It also remains unclear whether men who adopt more egalitarian or caregiving roles will be perceived as sufficiently attractive mates to compensate for their departure from traditional provider roles. Instead, it seems more likely that the new normal will involve a growing number of men being “selected away” from the mating market altogether, as women’s autonomy allows them to opt out of relationships that do not meet their expectations. For men, being “selected away” from the mating market has significant mental health implications, such as depression (Costello et al., Reference Costello, Rolon, Thomas and Schmitt2024; Iwamoto et al., Reference Iwamoto, Brady, Kaya and Park2018).

It is also worth considering whether men may have reduced interest in what women offer as mates. Indeed, this disconnect between what is desired and what is offered could contribute to growing disengagement on both sides of the mating market. This issue clearly shows the tension between evolutionary mate preferences, egalitarian relationships, and the new realities of partner selection in a rapidly changing social context. While the transition to new norms offers opportunities for greater equality, it also reveals the limitations of expecting that men’s preferences and behaviors will naturally converge with women’s changing priorities. The true challenge lies not only in redefining gender roles as some argue but, more importantly, also in addressing both the social and evolutionary barriers that prevent men and women from fully embracing these changes (Buss, Reference Buss1989; Connell, Reference Connell2005).

Men’s changing gender role may lead women to continue their exploration into reproductive technologies, such as IVF, egg freezing, and surrogacy. In 2023, IVF led to 95,860 babies born in the USA, or 2.6% of all births (American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2023). Egg freezing is valued at $5.63 billion USD in 2024 and projected to reach $30.78 billion by 2035 (Metatech Insights, 2025). Meanwhile, surrogacy, which is poorly defined and varies substantially by country in terms of legality, shows a global industry with a value of $14 billion in 2022, increasing to $17.9 billion in 2023, and an expected value of $139 billion by 2032 (see Horsey, Reference Horsey2024). These technologies allow individuals to separate reproduction from traditional family structures, enabling women to have greater control over their reproductive choices. This shift has the potential to further disrupt traditional gender norms by decoupling women’s identities from their roles as mothers and caregivers. For example, egg freezing allows women to delay childbearing without sacrificing their career aspirations, challenging the notion that women must prioritize reproduction during their most fertile years (Aurrekoetxea-Casaus et al., Reference Aurrekoetxea-Casaus, Ronda and Govillard2022). Or, perhaps, as revealed to one of this paper’s authors by a woman who underwent the procedure, one is simply pushing the window wider open as a strategy to allow them more time to find a mate with whom to raise a child.

However, the question “but what of men?” opens up an equally intriguing discussion about how these advancements affect men and their roles in society. Studies reveal that men and women experience and perceive assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) differently. For example, among a Spanish sample, women navigated broader pressures such as infertility and genetic disorders, while men tended to focus on specific outcomes, such as sex selection or the continuation of family lineage (Aurrekoetxea-Casaus et al., Reference Aurrekoetxea-Casaus, Ronda and Govillard2022). These differing perspectives provide evidence of the gendered dimensions of reproductive decision-making and the ways in which traditional notions of masculinity and fatherhood persist even in the context of technological advancements.

The societal impact of these changes is complex. On one hand, the individualization of reproduction offers women greater autonomy over their careers and personal goals without being constrained by biological timelines, though whether this constitutes gender equality, given that it may further sideline men from the reproductive process, remains an open question. On the other hand, it raises questions about the commodification of reproduction and the ethical implications of technologies that are often accessible only to the privileged few. As these technologies become more widespread, they may also challenge traditional notions of family and parenthood, creating new opportunities for diverse family structures to emerge. The individualization of reproduction also has implications for men, as it challenges the traditional narrative of fatherhood as being tied to biological reproduction. As women gain greater autonomy in their reproductive choices, men may need to redefine, again, their roles in family and society, toward, perhaps, more cooperative models of partnership and parenting. For example, they may show more shared parenting duties, contribute more to household responsibilities, providing care when a woman has a child without a partner, or assist their female relatives with children (such as the Nair of India; Karthikeyan & Fisher, Reference Karthikeyan and Fisher2023).

The path ahead for women

What might happen to women if men are further marginalized? Given the effects to date are seen disproportionately among men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, with limited access to education, and those in industries experiencing economic decline, these men may face further reduced opportunities for stable employment, social mobility, and fulfilling traditional provider roles. The marginalization of these men, particularly in the context of mate selection, has far-reaching implications for women. At the very least, it may further reduce the potential mating pool for women, meaning some women are opting for single parenthood or alternative family structures. This trend is particularly noticeable among women in their 30s and 40s, who often prioritize personal and professional goals over traditional family models (Hertz, Reference Hertz2006). Just as women in early human societies balanced caregiving with resource acquisition, modern women in high-income societies are navigating similar dual roles in the context of career advancement and family life, often without the support of traditional pair-bonding structures.

Indeed, the emotional and psychological consequences for women are not to be dismissed, as loneliness and isolation are common challenges for women who are unable to find compatible partners. Sharp and Ganong (Reference Sharp and Ganong2011) discuss the social stigma associated with being single, particularly for women, who are often judged more harshly than men for remaining unmarried (perhaps while men of perceived high value may be immune from judgment, and men who face marginalization are simply ignored). This stigma can lead to feelings of inadequacy and social exclusion, negatively influencing their mental health. Moreover, the absence of a supportive partner can increase the pressure on women to succeed in all areas of life. Women may feel pushed to excel in their careers, maintain social connections, and fulfill caregiving responsibilities simultaneously, leading to stress and burnout. The “superwoman” ideal, which glorifies women who can “do it all,” often exacerbates these pressures, creating unrealistic expectations and diminishing women’s quality of life (Hochschild & Machung, Reference Hochschild and Machung2012).

If more men are marginalized, we predict that there would be a smaller potential mating pool, meaning some women may simply opt to become single mothers, potentially using reproductive technologies, rather than miss out on reproducing altogether. However, it is important to consider the broader implications for children raised in single-parent households. While these technologies provide women with greater autonomy and the ability to pursue parenthood independently, research consistently demonstrates that children from single-parent households often face worse outcomes compared to those raised in two-parent households. These outcomes include higher rates of poverty, lower academic achievement, and increased behavioral and emotional challenges (e.g., Amato, Reference Amato2005; McLanahan & Sandefur, Reference McLanahan and Sandefur1994). These considerations signal the need for social policies and support systems to mitigate the potential disadvantages faced by children in single-parent households, ensuring that reproductive autonomy does not come at the expense of child well-being.

Going further, if some men are marginalized, it may lead those men who are not marginalized to have an even greater share of reproductive success, given that they would have the most mating opportunities when women forgo the use of technology. They would also be able to have more ease in finding a mate for a long-term relationship, due to less viable competition. Power imbalances in these relationships may emerge; with fewer men deemed “good enough,” those who are considered desirable may hold disproportionate influence. Women may feel pressured to compromise their standards, accept unequal partnerships, or simply have to cope with a relationship they find less than ideal. A common argument from some influencers associated with the so-called manosphere is that women must be monogamous if they are in a relationship with a high-value man, while the man must be free to sleep around (e.g., Gaines, Reference Gaines2025).

The findings reviewed in Part One reveal that shifting gender roles, economic autonomy, and reproductive decision-making have significant consequences for women that extend well beyond the question of fertility. Women’s growing selectivity in mate choice from rising educational and economic attainment has contributed to declining rates of pair bonding, and increasing reliance on reproductive technologies and single parenthood as alternatives to traditional family formation. These trends are not distributed equally across women, as those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face particularly challenging consequences, including financial insecurity, disproportionate caregiving burdens, and social stigma. Yet even women with greater economic resources face tension between what evolutionary psychology predicts they will seek in a long-term partner (status, ambition, resource acquisition) and the traits many men are encouraged to develop. Where men cannot adapt to changing expectations, and where the pool of men deemed suitable partners continues to narrow, some costs fall on women, whether as loneliness and delayed reproduction. Pressure to accept unequal partnerships and the psychological burden of navigating an increasingly complex mating market are also relevant here. It is against this backdrop that Part Two examines one underexplored downstream consequence of some men’s marginalization: the effect of perceived mate scarcity on how women relate to one another.

The influence on women’s behavior with other women

As Part One outlined, not all women will respond to male marginalization by seeking a romantic partner or pursuing traditional reproduction; some will opt for single parenthood, alternative family structures, or reproductive technologies that decouple childbearing from pair bonding. For the women who do seek romantic partners or traditional reproduction, a reduced mating pool is likely to motivate increased competition for the most desired partners. It is also worth noting that women need not consciously desire partnership for competitive dynamics to emerge. Female psychology may be sufficiently influenced by environmental cues of mate scarcity that it intensifies intrasexual competition irrespective of explicit goals, which is a possibility that warrants consideration when interpreting the findings next reviewed. First, though, it is necessary to determine what women are seeking in a potential mating partner. Men, themselves, seem to be at a loss, at least based on current opinion pieces such as Hamid (Reference Hamid2025) from The Washington Post with the title, “How to be the kind of man women actually want to marry.” What does seem to be clear is that women’s romantic and sexual attention toward men is not evenly distributed.

This uneven distribution of women’s attention becomes even more apparent when one examines the rise of online dating platforms, which have reshaped the dynamics of attention and desirability within mating markets. Empirical studies have demonstrated that women on dating platforms are more likely to direct their attention toward a relatively small subset of men, thereby amplifying competitive asymmetries. Bruch and Newman (Reference Bruch and Newman2018) analyzed messaging data from a popular dating service using a scaled rank system, similar to the PageRank algorithm originally developed by Google to rank web pages. PageRank weights nodes (here, profiles) by the number and quality of their incoming connections, so a profile contacted by many highly desirable users itself ranks as highly desirable. In the context of online dating, this ranking means that profiles that receive more interactions, such as messages, likes, or matches, are ranked higher because they are perceived as more desirable. They found that PageRank placed the most desirable men’s profiles at the top of female users’ interactions in the USA, and user engagement data demonstrated that attention is disproportionately concentrated among these individuals. This pattern is further corroborated by Rudder (Reference Rudder2014), who documented that dating site algorithms and user behavior collectively produce a “winner-take-most” distribution wherein a minority of men receive the majority of interactions (see also Lin & Lundquist, Reference Lin and Lundquist2013).

Taking this argument further, the disproportionate concentration of attention on a small subset of men on online dating platforms also influences long-term relationship formation. Research indicates that online dating has become one of the most common pathways for couples to meet, with estimates suggesting that roughly 30–40% of heterosexual couples in the USA now meet online (Rosenfeld et al., Reference Rosenfeld, Thomas and Hausen2019; see also approximately 27% in Gross, Reference Gross2025). This matters because the winner-take-most dynamics documented by Bruch and Newman (Reference Bruch and Newman2018) and Rudder (Reference Rudder2014) are not merely features of casual browsing but shape the pathways through which long-term relationships form, concentrating women’s attention and competitive energies on an ever-narrower subset of men.

Indeed, women often use strategies aimed at increasing their attractiveness to potential mates, typically with the goal of showing that they are better than a potential mating rival. In contexts where some marginalized men are excluded from the mating market, we predict that women’s competitive strategies for the remaining men become even more pronounced, as the stakes for securing a desirable partner are heightened. Some of these strategies include behaviors outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Women’s competitive mating strategies

Table 1. Long description

The table consists of three columns: Strategy, Behaviors, and Example references.

1. Enhancing physical appearance: Wearing revealing clothing, makeup, or cosmetic surgery. References: Arnocky and Piche 2014, Bonell et al. 2023, and others.

2. Emphasizing youth and fertility: Highlighting clear skin and shiny hair. References: Fisher 2004, Sugiyama 2005.

3. Use of cosmetics: Applying bold lipstick or eye makeup. References: Mafra et al. 2020, Sulikowski et al. 2022.

4. Investing in clothing and fitness: Wearing designer brands or fitness activities. Reference: Bradshaw and DelPriore 2022.

5. Conspicuous consumption: Using luxury brands to deter rivals. Reference: Hudders et al. 2014.

6. Manipulate rival’s appearance: Advising unflattering clothing or hair. References: Fisher and Cox 2011, Sulikowski et al. 2024.

7. Spreading negative gossip: Sharing false information to reduce mate value. References: Buss and Dedden 1990, Davis et al. 2019, Reynolds et al. 2025.

8. Reputation manipulation: Transmitting damaging social information. References: Hess 2022, Reynolds and Palmer-Hague 2022.

9. Withhold information: Hiding positive info about a rival. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

10. Exclusion: Isolating a rival from social circles. Reference: Simmons 2003.

11. Manipulate rival’s perceptions of mate: Claiming a mate is undesirable. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

12. Remove rival or divert attention: Claiming a mate is gay or dating oneself. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

13. Derogate rival’s sexuality: Pointing out unfaithfulness. References: Fisher and Cox 2011, Wyckoff et al. 2019.

14. Derogate rival’s appearance: Calling a rival ugly. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

15. Derogate rival’s personality: Calling a rival unintelligent or obsessive. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

16. Flirting and direct contact: Smiling, teasing, and physical touch. References: Fisher and Cox 2011, Wade et al. 2021.

17. Attract mate: Informing mate of interest. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

18. Establish commonality: Finding shared interests. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

19. Mate guarding: Monitoring partner’s interactions. References: Buss 1988, 2002, Fisher and Cox 2011.

20. Maintain mate’s satisfaction: Complimenting or doing things for them. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

21. Advertise autonomy: Playing hard to get. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

22. Personality enhancement: Appearing nice, caring, or confident. Reference: Fisher and Cox 2011.

23. Direct aggression: Bullying or physically hurting a rival. References: Fisher 2024, Fisher and Cox 2011.

Physical attractiveness, as a key determinant of female mate value, becomes particularly important in environments where competition for high-status partners is intense (Fisher, Reference Fisher and Shackelford2022; Fisher & Fernández, Reference Fisher, Fernández and Fisher2017). This emphasis on physical appearance matches men’s prioritization of visual cues of reproductive potential, which drives women to adopt strategies that promote these traits (Fisher, Reference Fisher2004; Sugiyama, Reference Sugiyama and Buss2005) and be highly attuned to the appearance (Fink et al., Reference Fink, Klappauf, Brewer and Shackelford2014) and voices (Puts et al., Reference Puts, Barndt, Welling, Dawood and Burriss2011) of other women. However, Bradshaw and DelPriore (Reference Bradshaw and DelPriore2022) explain that such appearance-enhancing behaviors serve not only to attract mates but also to secure direct access to resources and indirect access through increased social status and influence. Moreover, the use of appearance-enhancing strategies is often context-dependent, with women increasing their efforts in social settings where potential rivals are present (Mafra et al., Reference Mafra, Varella and Valentova2020). Indeed, the line between mate attraction and mating competition is not always clear; Sulikowski et al. (Reference Sulikowski, Ensor and Wagstaff2022) suggest that women may use cosmetics not only to enhance their own attractiveness but also as a form of intrasexual aggression, signaling dominance and superiority over perceived rivals. This strategic use of cosmetics shows its dual function as both a tool for mate attraction and mating competition.

Unlike men’s intrasexual aggression and competition, it appears that women do not seek to establish dominance over rivals as much as to damage rivals. Therefore, women may also engage in aggression toward rivals to reduce their chances of success in the mating market without relying on dominance. This aggression may be exacerbated in environments where the marginalization of some men creates a scarcity of desirable partners, further fueling rivalry among women. This can include verbal confrontations, public shaming, or spreading rumors to damage a rival’s reputation (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Baumeister and Maner2018; Wyckoff et al., Reference Wyckoff, Asao and Buss2019). Such behaviors are often aimed at lowering the perceived mate value of competitors, thereby increasing one’s own relative desirability. Women may criticize a rival’s appearance, her sexual history, question her moral character, or point out her potential flaws (i.e., in her behavior or physical aspects that are unattractive) to dissuade potential mates from pursuing her (Campbell, Reference Campbell2004; Fisher & Cox, Reference Fisher and Cox2011). A woman’s ability to influence a potential mate’s perception of a rival is most effective when he perceives the person making the derogations as physically attractive. When she makes disparaging remarks about another woman, then his ratings of the rival’s attractiveness significantly decrease (Bendixen & Kennair, Reference Bendixen and Kennair2015; Fisher & Cox, Reference Fisher and Cox2009). Mating competition can also involve actual physical aggression, though this is less common among women compared to men (for a review, see Fisher, Reference Fisher, Fisher, Garcia and Chang2013, Reference Fisher2017). When physical aggression does occur, it is often context-dependent and may arise in situations where rivals are perceived as direct threats to securing a mate (Archer, Reference Archer2009) or retaining a mate, such as seen among co-wives in some countries (Fisher, Reference Fisher2024). Women also compete by catering to male mating preferences, such as engaging in more promiscuous sex with the most sought-after men (Larsen, Reference Larsen and Shackelford2023; Larsen & Kennair, Reference Larsen and Kennair2025). In some environments, early pregnancy seems to be another female competitive strategy (Barber, Reference Barber2000; Chipman & Morrison, Reference Chipman and Morrison2013).

One of the primary theoretical arguments for why women rely on indirect aggression is that it minimizes the risk of physical harm, which is especially costly to women due to their role as primary caregivers of children (Campbell, Reference Campbell1999). From an evolutionary perspective, risking women’s lives also jeopardizes the survival of their children, making indirect aggression a safer strategy for competition. This theory is further supported by evidence from hunter-gatherer groups, where infant mortality is significantly higher when mothers die before their children reach two years of age (Sear & Mace, Reference Sear and Mace2008). In Butajira, Ethiopia, between 1987 and 2011, 81% of infants died when their mothers passed away within 42 days of giving birth (Moucheraud et al., Reference Moucheraud, Worku, Molla, Finlay, Leaning and Yamin2015). These evolutionary pressures have shaped women’s competitive behaviors, favoring subtle tactics that avoid direct confrontation.

Most of women’s mating competition involves the use of indirect aggression, with behaviors such as gossiping, spreading rumors, and social exclusion aimed at undermining rivals (see Table 1). These strategies serve to diminish the perceived mate value of competitors while protecting the aggressor’s social standing. Vaillancourt (Reference Vaillancourt2013) found that women are particularly likely to target attractive and sexually available rivals, as these individuals pose the greatest threat in mate competition. Indirect aggression not only protects the aggressor’s reputation but also reduces the victim’s willingness to compete, thereby increasing the aggressor’s chances of securing a mate. Reynolds (Reference Reynolds2022) further argues that these countervailing forces create pressures for women to conceal their competition or disguise it as altruism, adding another layer of complexity to this form of rivalry.

It must be noted that the use of indirect aggression is often influenced by individual differences, such as personality traits. Buunk and Fisher (Reference Buunk and Fisher2009) report that, among women, intrasexual competitiveness is predicted by a lack of agreeableness, with neuroticism contributing further. A woman’s self-perceived attractiveness also affects which competitive tactic she uses, with women who rate themselves more attractive relying more on self-promotion than competitor derogation (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Cox and Gordon2009). Social comparison, too, plays a crucial role in shaping competitive behaviors. Women who frequently compare themselves to others are more likely to experience feelings of envy and engage in rivalry, particularly in environments where physical attractiveness is highly valued (Fardouly et al., Reference Fardouly, Diedrichs, Vartanian and Halliwell2015).

Particularly relevant for this paper is how the marginalization of some men influences the intensity and nature of women’s intrasexual mating competition. In societies with greater gender equality, where women have more economic independence and access to resources, competition for mates may be less intense. Conversely, in cultures where traditional gender roles persist, patriarchal systems not only amplify pressures on women to secure high-status partners but also exacerbate competition among men, further shaping women’s competitive behaviors (Kruger et al., Reference Kruger, Fisher and Wright2014). In such contexts, the exclusion of marginalized men from the mating market creates a hyper-competitive environment, where women may feel greater pressure to secure a high-status partner, amplifying competitive behaviors (Durante et al., Reference Durante, Griskevicius, Simpson, Cantú and Tybur2012). Further, in response to a limited pool of desirable mates, women may adjust their mate preferences or shift their life priorities. Durante et al. (Reference Durante, Griskevicius, Simpson, Cantú and Tybur2012) found that a scarcity of men led women to prioritize high-paying careers over starting a family. This shift was particularly strong among women who perceived themselves as having lower mate value, as they were less likely to secure a long-term partner in a competitive mating market.

Focusing on a small subset of men amplifies competitive pressures among women. Indeed, research indicates that a low male-to-female ratio increases competition among women and influences mating strategies (Dillon et al., Reference Dillon, Adair, Brase and Fisher2017; Larsen, Reference Larsen and Shackelford2023). By framing the marginalization of men as a factor that alters the operational sex ratio (OSR), we can better understand how it reshapes women’s strategic competitive behaviors, leading them to adopt specific tactics to secure a mate. Thus, we posit that findings on sex ratios provide a useful framework for predicting the outcomes of men’s marginalization, as it effectively alters the perceived number of available mates. Moss and Maner (Reference Moss and Maner2016) found that in female-skewed environments, women are more likely to engage in same-sex aggression, particularly when competing for high-value mates. Schmitt (Reference Schmitt2004) suggests that such environments also increase the likelihood of mate poaching, where women attempt to attract mates who are already in relationships. With the marginalization of some men resulting in the narrowing of available mates, women’s intrasexual competition intensifies to access those remaining men. (Men will also need to compete more to be among the selected few; see Massar, Reference Massar and Shackelford2022.) Intrasexual competition, conceptualized as rivalry between individuals of the same sex for access to mates, often intensifies when desirable mates are scarce, leading to strategies aimed at securing a partner which has significant implications for reproductive success (Campbell, Reference Campbell1999, Reference Campbell2004; Fisher, Reference Fisher, Fisher, Garcia and Chang2013; Hrdy, Reference Hrdy1999). Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Chen, Chen and Yang2020) report that when OSRs show fewer men than women, women’s searches on Google for beautification increase, as does the density (per 100,000 people) of certificated plastic surgeons, presuming that women are attempting to enhance their attractiveness to potential mates. Reynolds et al. (Reference Reynolds, Maner, Frederick, Forney and Garcia2023) found that female-skewed sex ratios are associated with increased body dissatisfaction and weight loss motivations among women. As another example, economic recessions (or when there is more variance in the distribution of resources among men) result in an increase in intrasexual competition among women for those men with resources, as evidenced by spending on beauty products and increased sexualization on social media platforms (Blake et al., Reference Blake, Bastian, Denson, Grosjean and Brooks2018; Blake & Brooks, Reference Blake and Brooks2019; Hill et al., Reference Hill, Rodeheffer, Griskevicius, Durante and White2012).

This scarcity-driven competition intensifies indirect aggression, such as gossip and social exclusion, and also strains social relationships among women, as envy heightens sensitivity to perceived inequalities in access to desirable mates (e.g., Arnocky et al., Reference Arnocky, Davis and Vaillancourt2022). The way envy varies at a trait level influences women’s competition; those with high envy may compete for scarce resources by derogating rivals, whereas those with low envy may rely on self-promotion. Taking these findings one step further, the competitive pressures associated with male marginalization leading to perceived mate scarcity would presumably strain female friendships, as women may perceive their friends as rivals in the pursuit of desirable partners (Bleske-Rechek & Lighthall, Reference Bleske-Rechek and Lighthall2010). Bleske-Rechek and Lighthall (Reference Bleske-Rechek and Lighthall2010) emphasize that attractiveness plays an important role in shaping rivalry within women’s friendships, as women often compare themselves to their friends in terms of physical appearance and perceived mate value. This rivalry can lead to feelings of jealousy and insecurity, particularly when one friend is perceived as more attractive or successful in attracting male attention. In such cases, friendships may become fraught with subtle forms of competition, such as indirect aggression or passive-aggressive behaviors, as women navigate the dual roles of ally and rival. This competition can manifest in subtle ways, such as jealousy, social comparison, or indirect aggression. Women may downplay a friend’s achievements or spread rumors to diminish their perceived mate value, particularly when competing for the same desirable partners. These behaviors serve to undermine rivals while maintaining a façade of friendship, an issue that warrants research attention.

Even amid rivalry, women often continue to rely on friends for emotional support and validation, demonstrating the coexistence of competition and cooperation. Women have historically relied on alliances with other women for survival and resource sharing, particularly in parenting and community contexts (Hrdy, Reference Hrdy2009). These alliances remain essential even in competitive scenarios, suggesting that cooperation is not entirely abandoned but rather adapted to the circumstances.

Ultimately, competition within same-sex friendships negatively impacts friendship satisfaction, as it undermines trust and intimacy (Singleton & Vacca, Reference Singleton and Vacca2007). But what really matters is that women may feel conflicted between their desire to maintain close friendships and the competitive pressures of the mating market. Herein lies the dual nature of these relationships, where competition coexists with cooperation, as women navigate social situations to maintain alliances and protect their social standing. Thus, despite the competitive pressures, women also engage in cooperative strategies to navigate these challenges. Cooperation often serves as a counterbalance to competition, allowing women to form alliances that enhance their social standing and provide mutual support. These alliances can help women protect themselves from rivalries and maintain their social networks. Take structured social groups, such as college sororities, where cooperation and competition often coexist. Hess (Reference Hess2022) explored female friendships within U.S. college sororities, finding that women strategically manage their reputations and alliances to balance the dual demands of competition and cooperation. Women may collaborate to enhance the collective reputation of their group while simultaneously competing for individual recognition and status. In structured social groups, cooperation is often formalized through shared goals and collective decision-making. These alliances not only provide emotional support but also help women navigate the social hierarchies and reputational risks (Hess, Reference Hess2022). From an evolutionary perspective, forming alliances with other women provides a survival advantage, as it facilitates resource sharing and mutual protection. However, the same alliances can become sources of tension when competition for mates intensifies (Campbell, Reference Campbell1999).

Consider, too, that there are cultural distinctions. In societies that emphasize individual achievement and status, competition among women may be more noticeable, leading to greater strain in friendships. In collectivist cultures that prioritize group harmony, cooperative behaviors may be more prevalent, reducing the influence of competition on friendships (Curry et al., Reference Curry, Mullins and Whitehouse2019). Collectivist cultures often reinforce traditional gender roles and male dominance, as these societies tend to emphasize hierarchical structures and male authority as part of maintaining group cohesion (Connell & Messerschmidt, Reference Connell and Messerschmidt2005). This pattern can shape how women navigate their social networks and manage relationships. For example, regardless of cultural context, reputation management is an important aspect of female friendships. Women often use their social networks to enhance their reputations and mitigate the risks associated with competition (Reynolds & Palmer-Hague, Reference Reynolds and Palmer-Hague2022). Hess and Hagen (Reference Hess, Hagen, Giardini and Wittek2019) also discuss the role of gossip as a tool for managing reputations and navigating in-group competition. By sharing information about rivals, women can strengthen their alliances and protect their social standing. Yet the use of gossip and other reputation management strategies can also backfire, leading to conflicts and mistrust within friendships.