04.04.2026

A reader from Melbourne writes in on modern women, the rise of singlehood, and why men are checking out

A reader from Australia weighs in on shifting relationship dynamics, the growing appeal of singlehood among men, and whether publications like GC are keeping pace with the reality modern men are actually living.

GC Illustration.

 

Editor’s Note: This letter has been edited for length and clarity while preserving the writer’s voice. The writer’s name has been changed at his request.

 

Warm greetings to all the gents of GC.

It is interesting to read some of the feedback shared by men on your site. I would like to chime in on this debate about modern women and relationships.

If you think the majority of women in Malaysia are already a concern, the ones in Australia are something else entirely. There is not even a trace of ladies conduct left in how many of them carry themselves.

I would partly blame men for this. We place gentlemanly conduct so firmly at the front that we forget the implications — because the other party is under no corresponding obligation to rise to meet it. Gender equality began as a conversation about equal pay and equal opportunity, which are legitimate pursuits. But the concept has long since left the office. At home, duties are now expected to be equally shared — with notable exceptions. Footing the bill, fixing things, shouldering the structural weight of a household: those remain the man's domain. The equality on offer is selective.

In Australia, single-person households have become not just common but celebrated. What was once a transitional phase is now a destination. Women no longer feel compelled to embrace femininity. They want equality in every dimension — how they work, how they speak, how they lead, how they spend. To soften the edges of this, it gets called partnership. It gets called balance. But the accounting rarely balances.

 

"Today, the world is seeing singlehood not as a detour but a destination."

 

Social media has introduced a new category of marital grievance I would not have believed ten years ago. I was, frankly, a victim of it. My ex-wife — a thirty-year-old business consultant, not a teenager — raised the matter of social media likes repeatedly in our arguments. A like on a photograph of a woman I did not know became, in her framing, evidence of infidelity. That is the level of insecurity men are now expected to navigate and, apparently, adapt to.

Household labour has similarly been reframed. Tasks like mopping, ironing, and cleaning are increasingly treated as jobs for hired professionals rather than responsibilities a wife might share in. Should men simply accept this reclassification? Why are we normalising changes we never agreed to, simply because a woman has declared them non-negotiable?

I returned from a five-thousand-dollar holiday once, and within twenty-four hours was being asked what we were doing that weekend — with the clear expectation that it would involve spending more money. There was no concept of having just spent. No instinct for restraint. If men continue to absorb every expectation without pushback, we will spend ourselves into the ground before sixty trying to keep pace.

Divorce has become a culture. And I do not say that entirely as a criticism. A toxic relationship destroys a man's mental health as surely as anyone else's. What I will push back on is the framing that endurance is the same as commitment. They are not.

I also want to respectfully challenge something GC has put in writing — the suggestion that a man arriving home to a meal on the table is a thing of the past. I understand the intent. But publishing that concession gives women a carte blanche they do not need and should not be handed by a publication that positions itself around tradition. Similarly, I would gently challenge the notion that marriage is always a lifetime commitment to be honoured regardless of circumstance. When a role no longer serves your growth, you leave it. We understand this logic in every other domain of life. Marriage is not exempt simply because a woman's reputation might suffer from a man's departure.

Why are so many people choosing singlehood? Because they have run the numbers. They have weighed the cost — financial, emotional, psychological — against the return, and concluded that the calculus no longer favours partnership. They are not afraid to say so.

Modern women, by and large, will not change in response to male complaint. The more men raise it, the more it is dismissed. Perhaps the more useful question is this: should men stop framing gentlemanly conduct around what a woman expects of it, and start framing it around what they expect of themselves?

The Economist recently argued that the rise of singlehood is reshaping the world. CNBC has reported that the number of singles in the United States is growing rapidly. CNA Insider has documented young Asians turning away from marriage in significant numbers. Research from Bocconi University in Milan shows Italy — one of the world's most culturally influential nations — experiencing a sharp rise in single-person households. These are not fringe signals. They are the direction of travel.

As a publication for men, these are the conversations worth having. The world has moved. The question is whether GC moves with it, or continues to write for a reality that is quietly becoming historical.

I look forward to reading your response.

Adam

Answer by The Gent:

Greetings from Kuala Lumpur Adam.

Thank you for writing in. Letters like yours are precisely why this column exists. Not to validate, not to lecture, but to think out loud with men who are genuinely grappling with how the world has changed and what it means for the way they choose to live.

We read your letter carefully. We sat with it. And we want to respond with the same directness you brought to the table.

Let us begin where we agree.

You are right that marriage, as an institution, has changed fundamentally. The phrase "until death do us part" was once backed by social architecture — community expectation, religious convention, legal difficulty, and the simple reality that divorce carried a stigma few were willing to absorb. That architecture has largely dissolved. Today, men and women carry far greater autonomy over how they wish to structure their lives, and that autonomy is not something to mourn. It is something to handle with maturity.

If a marriage has become genuinely toxic, if it no longer grows, no longer serves either party, if conflict has calcified into something neither person can move through, then walking away is not a failure of character. It can be the most honest thing a man does. The gentleman's obligation is not to the institution for its own sake. It is to the truth of the situation. And sometimes the truth is that the most dignified thing left to do is to leave cleanly, without bitterness, without turning the exit into a performance of grievance. Walk away with grace. That is the standard.

We also agree that modern women have changed, and that this is not an exaggeration. Cultural and social shifts, the legitimate pursuit of gender equality, and the broader rejection of structures that were, in many cases, genuinely constraining. These have reshaped what women expect of themselves and of the men beside them. A podcast we came across recently, featuring a prominent journalist whose work sits at the intersection of gender and culture, made this point plainly: many women today are actively rejecting the traditional relationship model, while men's expectations of women remain, in many cases, anchored to older ideals. That gap is real. It creates friction. And no amount of wishful thinking closes it.

But here is where we want to add something to your framing rather than simply echo it. A man who wants a traditional partner is not wrong. That expectation is legitimate. What matters is when and how he communicates it. Before the ceremony. Not after. Before the rings are exchanged, a man owes it to himself and to the woman he is considering marrying to be explicit: about what he values, what he expects, what he is and is not willing to negotiate. Household responsibilities. Financial expectations. How decisions get made. What the shape of a shared life actually looks like in practice. These are not romantic conversations. They are necessary ones. The men who skip them and then find themselves resentful three years in have, in part, authored their own frustration.

Iron out the terms before you sign. That is not unromantic. That is respect for her and for yourself.

Now, the point where we part ways with you most firmly, Adam, and we want to be clear about this: your suggestion that men should disassociate gentlemanly conduct from how a woman behaves. We understand the logic. We do not accept the conclusion.

A gentleman's conduct is not a service he renders in exchange for a woman's appreciation. It is not transactional. It is not contingent. It is an expression of who he is. His character, his standard, his self-respect made visible. If a woman is rude, dismissive, or simply incapable of recognising what is in front of her, a gentleman does not lower himself to meet her there. He will walk away if all efforts of reconciliation failed. Not because he has given up on gentlemanly conduct, but because he has applied it correctly: to the situation, with clarity, and without losing himself in the process.

The man who abandons his standard because the world has grown coarser has not adapted. He has simply joined the coarseness. That is not a response we can endorse. Keep the standard. Find the woman who can meet it. It may take longer than it once did. That is the reality. But the alternative helps no one, least of all you.

Finally, on singlehood. We want to say this plainly: a man is not disqualified as a gentleman by his relationship status. Single, divorced, widowed, married, none of these define the standard. What defines the standard is character and values. The consistent way a man conducts himself when no one is watching and when nothing external is validating him. GC has always held that position, and we intend to say it more explicitly going forward. There is a version of the single life that is deeply considered, purposefully constructed, and worthy of serious editorial attention. We will be giving it that attention.

The data you have cited from The Economist, CNBC, CNA Insider, and Bocconi University tells us that singlehood is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a structural shift that is reshaping households, economies, and social fabric across the world. That conversation belongs in these pages. Not as a consolation for men who could not make relationships work, and not as a referendum on women, but as a genuine examination of what a well-constructed life, in whatever form it takes, actually demands of a man.

Thank you, Adam, for opening this up. We suspect you are not alone in what you are feeling. We know you are not alone in what you are observing.

And now we open the floor.

To the GC Community: Adam's letter has clearly struck a nerve. We would like to hear from the rest of you — married, single, divorced, somewhere in between. Where do you stand on what he has raised? Do you agree that gentlemanly conduct should be reconsidered in light of how modern relationships have changed? Or do you hold, as we do, that the standard must remain regardless of whether the world around it obliges? Write to us. This conversation is worth having properly.

 

With respect and solidarity,

The Gent

Gentlemen's Code has your back! We're thrilled to announce our brand new section on our website: "Ask the Gentleman." Submit your burning questions on all things refined living, health & fitness, relationships, culture, style, and etiquette by emailing editor@gentlemanscodes.com.

Please note:

1. We no longer accept letters on divorce issues.

2. We do not entertain unconstructive correspondence, race and religion topics, or hate speech.

3. If you are writing on behalf of an institution, organisation, or formal body and wish to submit a letter to GC, we kindly request that you provide reasonable proof of your affiliation or existence. This helps us maintain the integrity of all correspondence.

4. We reserve the right to adjust the tone or language of any published letter- without altering its core content or context - to ensure that the standards of tact, respect, and public discourse are upheld.

Thank you for your understanding.

Related posts