24.11.2025

Letter to GC: Why modern women expect men to adapt - Not the other way around

A powerful letter from Diana urging men to rethink traditional expectations, accept evolving female roles, and embrace the true responsibilities of a modern gentleman.

GC illustration.
 

 

Letter's Summary

In an era where women are rewriting the rules of identity and partnership, many men are still flipping through an outdated manual on how relationships work. Diana’s letter arrives like a wake-up call wrapped in honesty - unfiltered and painfully accurate. She argues that the modern woman is no longer auditioning for the role of the obedient wife of the past, and that if men want love to thrive, the adaptation must come from their side. Her message is clear: the world has changed, women have evolved, and the definition of a gentleman must evolve with them.

 

Hi GC,

I love your recent publication in the letter to GC on educating men that they were born to sacrifice, and what Sally describes is almost spot on but I would like to negate one thing in her statement to you.

Like her, I am married and I experience exactly what she has experienced. But this is not just about local men. I strongly believe men in general still want a traditional woman that includes mat salleh. I have so many Indonesian friends who are married to a mat salleh man and their reason for finding an Asian is because they think their own mat salleh woman is too dominating. They find Indonesian women much more traditional than Malaysian women.

But the rest of Sally's statement is accurate. I have been married to a Malay man for almost 8 years and he still can never get into his head about me not wanting to be the woman that he continues to fantasize in his head. He wants me to speak softly like a feminine. He wants me to call him baby even in the presence of my friends. He wants me to occasionally massage his back due to long hours at the office.

A lot of men think that having a wife is like having a servant at home. We are not the women of the yesteryears who would give a foot massage after work or willing to wait for her husband to come home from work before she can have her meal. We are changed women.

My husband has wanted kids since our first year of marriage. I told him I don't want to. If he wants kids, adopt. Do you guys know that most women now have begun to embrace adoption rather than conceiving? Raising babies is no longer a responsibility but a chore. I am not speaking on my behalf but I have done a survey on this and don't be surprised the number of women today no longer want to conceive is substantial and this is something men should get accustomed to. This is where the friction is because men continue to see things in the same perspective. 

Men continue to preserve the classic way of relationships. They want traditional marriage, they want a woman who speaks softly and gently, they want to get married to have kids to continue carrying the family name, especially a son, they want the wife to make the meals and take care of the kids, and organize the house. I am so sorry but reality is most women with those traits are in the history books unless you do a deep search in countries like Pakistan or some parts of Indonesia where traditional women still exist.

The role of a gentleman is much more needed today than ever because women have drastically changed and we need gentlemen who can accept who we are. You guys should know this better that a gentleman stands up for a woman so if she wants her way, just support her, don't change her. I went through your site before writing this and you have repeatedly mentioned that a gentleman respects women. So If a woman has changed, shouldn't the gentleman recognize that change and continue to respect her and not try to change her. Our values and how we see things have evolved significantly. Men should anticipate this and adapt with this change. 

Getting married is not about changing a woman to be this traditional lady-like. It's about men adapting into the life of a woman and what it's like staying together with a woman. We don't marry into your life, you marry into our lives. Men are supposed to be driving her around, making her meals, cleaning the house, massaging her at night, providing her money so she can buy her own clothes and do her hair comfortably. Treating her exactly like a princess. 

Unfortunately relationships get tainted because the majority of men think they become this leader after getting married and the woman would support them by being the person they want to be. This is an archaic mindset. We are not bibeks. Please accept criticism from your wife even if she has a foul mouth, this is where your gentleman trait comes into the picture. Be cool, lend an open air and listen to what she says even if it is a pain to sit through, even if she has so much to say that it would take an hour to listen to, be patient and listen. Don't ask her to calm down or lower down her voice, it makes it worse. 

As a gentleman publication, you should promote awareness to men out there that there is no point to change a woman because this is what a lady is by today's standard. It's not about being soft spoken, or polite or gentle anymore. Not in today's standards.

Why are there so many marriages where men completely lost all of their money to their wives? Because they think that women would just sacrifice for them and live with them with whatever the husband has. That is completely nonsense. Another 1950's mindset. You want to get married to a woman of today, make sure you have a good supply of money. Men today would always blame their woman because they had to pay for her expensive clothes, food, on top of paying all the utility bills but It is expected of a man to pay all that. 

Men should remember that societal norms are evolving, and there is now a greater acceptance of women in roles that were traditionally dominated by men, including leadership and assertiveness. So if we speak with assertiveness, don't act like you are all surprised by the "non-feminine, non-lady" tone. My husband was surprised when he heard me talking with vulgar slang over the phone with my colleagues. Can't a woman utter the word fuck you to her peers? What is this biasness? Men have so much fantasy going on in their head that they still live in the past thinking we are supposed to be this traditional lady living with politeness norms who obeys husbands. 

You can still be leaders but there is an oversight by women. I am not speaking arrogantly here but this is reality. Think of it as men being the CEO but women are now the Board of directors who provide oversight on the decisions made by men. Why do so many men complain about their wives checking on their phones or questioning where they go after work? We are just executing our job as "board of directors" and there is no such thing as trust issues that men continue to implicate here. 

Why are so many men getting nervous when it comes to checking their phones? It means they have done something nasty right?

My mother comes from Sabah..used to work in Sabah before she married my dad. Once she got married, she actually resigned her job and moved to Melaka to be with my dad and find a job in Melaka because my dad had a house and job in Melaka. Are there still many women like my mom today? Of course not. That power has shifted. Women are the ones who decide where to stay. Even carrying out responsibilities in the house has changed so much today...my mom would do all the cleaning and washing the clothes and dishes while she still goes to work and this was in the 70's. My dad would come home expecting to have food on the table. Is this applicable in today's world? Certainly not. We expect men to clean the house and do the dishes and do the cooking and to take out the laundry. 

A gentleman in today's era is very important and so relevant because a man's responsibility has grown tremendously. You are not just marrying a woman but you are marrying into her life. She is not marrying into your life. Her life is her life but your life becomes her life. What she wants, you have to provide not just financial support, but physical and emotional support.

This is why so many relationships fail and marriage turns into unhappiness because of unrealistic expectations by men. They think getting married makes their life easy because there is a woman who would take care of them and clean the house and iron their clothes and at the same time listen to their husbands. When reality doesn't meet their expectations, the whole marriage turns into turmoil. Divorce rates shoot up because men are not prepared to carry that weight of responsibility.  

As a men's publication, GC, you must set the reality here so that expectations are met. You have a tremendous amount of feedback on relationship issues because men have different expectations in relationships. What is lacking is that most men fail in raising the bar when in fact a real man listens to a woman and supports her in everything she does. If she doesn't want you to go out, don't go out. If she is bored, she expects you to entertain her by bringing her out and forget whatever chores you are doing. If she is sick, she expects you to cook and give her a good massage. If she is angry, she expects you to listen to her rant even if it is painful to hear. If she wants some new clothes, go out and buy for her. If she wants her friends to come into the house, keep quiet and let her bring them to the house. If you are so busy with work, stop everything and spend time with her. Do your work past midnight when she is asleep. You have to be mindful that you are not just marrying them but marrying into their life. 

A note to remember that most women now have egos so they want to win, you can be a man by letting them win and not get into arguments. Precisely why I say that being a gentleman today is much more important than it was before because it is extremely difficult to manage women today. It is definitely no easy task for men. You have to adapt many things to be with a woman. but this is how relationships are going to be moving forward and there needs to be some awareness on this because clearly many men still think that marriage is like in the 60's and 70's.

A food for thought.

Diana R.

Answer by The Gent:

Dear Diana,

Thank you for your candid and passionate letter. Your willingness to share your personal experience and observations reflects the kind of honest dialogue we value at GC.

You've touched upon something we've been examining closely in our editorial rooms, that modern men are indeed failing to raise the bar, not just in relationships, but across the broader landscape of life.

You're absolutely right about one thing: too many men today have become complacent. We see it everywhere - in education, where young men are falling behind academic achievement at alarming rates; in literature and the arts, where male engagement with culture and ideas has diminished; in civic life, where philosophical thought and meaningful discourse have been replaced by superficial posturing. The crisis isn't just about relationships - it's about men failing to cultivate themselves as complete human beings. A man who hasn't read widely, thought deeply, or developed his character has little to offer anyone, least of all himself.

This is precisely why the concept of the gentleman remains so vital. But here, Diana, we must pause and ask some deeper questions about what we mean when we speak of "gentleman" and what we seek when we speak of "relationship."

The Question of Reciprocity

You write passionately that men should adapt completely to women's lives, that "you marry into her life" rather than the reverse. But let us consider: Can genuine love exist without reciprocity? The philosopher Martin Buber wrote of the "I-Thou" relationship - authentic connection where both parties see each other as whole beings, not objects to serve a purpose. When one person exists primarily to fulfill another's desires, haven't we created not partnership, but a kind of benevolent tyranny?

You advocate that men should "let women win" to avoid arguments. But is winning what we truly seek in our most intimate relationships? The Greek concept of eudaimonia suggests that our deepest fulfillment comes not from victories over others, but from mutual growth alongside them.

The Paradox You've Presented

Your letter celebrates modern women's evolution and freedom - the choice not to have children, to pursue careers, to speak assertively, to define life on their own terms. This is progress, undoubtedly. Yet in the same breath, you write that "it is expected of a man to pay all that" (the utility bills, expensive clothes, food, entertainment) and that men should continue as primary providers while also taking on cooking, cleaning, and household duties.

May we ask you to consider this with us: If we agree that gender roles have been restrictive and harmful, why would liberation mean women are free to transcend their traditional roles while men must maintain theirs and adopt women's former responsibilities as well? You write that men complain about paying for expensive clothes and utilities - but if we're moving toward equality, might we ask whether financial provision should remain solely a male obligation?

Here's the philosophical tension we're hoping you'll explore with us: If a woman chooses not to have children, to speak assertively, to reject traditional femininity - all choices we respect - why can't a man equally choose to say, "I'd prefer a partner who shares financial responsibilities," or "I also want someone who occasionally cooks for me," or "I too want my preferences considered in where we live"?

When you write that "her life is her life but your life becomes her life," are we not simply reversing the very injustice we claim to oppose? The 1950s housewife who had to abandon her career and move for her husband's job was unjust. How is it justice when the reverse becomes the new expectation?

As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche cautioned, we must be careful that in fighting monsters, we do not become them. In rejecting one form of oppression, might we simply be inverting the hierarchy rather than transcending it?

The Individual and the Universal

You write that your survey shows "substantial" numbers of women no longer want children, that traditional women exist only "in history books." But dear Diana, might we invite you to consider: Walk through any neighborhood in Malaysia, from Taman Tun Dr. Ismail to Lahad Datu, and you'll find infinite variations of how people choose to build their lives together. Some women desperately want children. Some men wish to stay home with them. Some couples thrive with traditional dynamics; others create entirely novel arrangements.

The question we'd like to explore with you isn't whether your way is valid. It absolutely is, for you. The question is whether any single model can be declared "reality" for everyone. Existentialist philosophy reminds us that each relationship is a unique creation between two free individuals. The moment we demand conformity to one template - whether traditional or revolutionary - might we be denying the very freedom you claim to champion?

What You Deserve, and What He Deserves

Reading between the lines of your letter, dear Diana, we sense real pain. You and your husband want fundamentally different things - he wants children, you don't; he wants softness, you want assertiveness; he imagines one kind of marriage, you envision another. This isn't about who's right or wrong. This is about incompatibility.

May we offer this observation with genuine care: You deserve a partner who wants the same kind of relationship you do. But might we also consider - so does he? Neither of you should have to disappear for the other to feel fulfilled. The tragedy isn't that modern gender roles have evolved. That two people who want different things are trying to force a shared life while each declares the other must simply "adapt."

Could it be that the answer isn't demanding all men change to fit one model, but rather that both men and women deserve the freedom to seek partners whose vision aligns with their own?

Raising the Bar: What We Mean

You're correct that men must raise the bar. But might we explore together what that means?

A gentleman in the truest sense is not a servant, nor is he a dominator. He is a man who has cultivated himself - intellectually, physically, emotionally, culturally, morally. He reads Dostoevsky and understands the human condition. He's studied philosophy and grapples with questions of meaning and ethics. He's developed emotional intelligence and can engage in genuine self-reflection. He possesses strength of character but tempers it with humility. He respects women not because they're board members who oversee him, but because respect is what one whole human being owes another.

This kind of man doesn't need to be told what to do because he's developed the wisdom to discern what's right. He chooses partnership with someone whose vision of life aligns with his own. He doesn't surrender his autonomy - he exercises it by building a life of mutual flourishing.

The bar we're asking men to raise isn't about perfect compliance to someone else's checklist. It's about becoming men of substance and character - men worthy of equal partnership with women of substance, depth, and character. Does this resonate with you?

A Third Way

Rather than traditional subjugation or modern role reversal, might we propose something more challenging: conscious partnership? Two individuals who've done the work of knowing themselves, who've realized that both are not perfect, who come together not because they need someone to serve them or obey them, but because they've chosen to build something together.

This requires both parties to negotiate, compromise, and sometimes sacrifice - not out of obligation, but out of love. It means sometimes you massage his back, sometimes he massages yours. Sometimes he cooks, sometimes you cook, sometimes you eat out. Sometimes your career takes priority, sometimes his does. Sometimes he pays, sometimes you pay, sometimes you split it. Not because there's a rulebook, but because you care about each other's flourishing.

The Confucian principle of ren - reciprocal humanity - teaches us that we become fully human through our relationships with others. Not by dominating them, not by serving them unquestioningly, but by engaging in mutual recognition and respect.

What would you think if we suggested that true equality means both parties are free to evolve beyond restrictive gender roles - including the role of men as sole financial providers?

Our Editorial Position

GC advocates for men who honor and respect women, and wise enough to choose relationships that honor both partners' dignity. We will not promote a vision of masculinity based on self-erasure, just as we would never promote one based on dominance.

We believe in men becoming better - more educated, more cultured, more emotionally intelligent, more ethically grounded. We believe in men respecting women as complete human beings. But we also believe men deserve respect in return. Love isn't a zero-sum game where one person's freedom requires another's subjugation.

A Final Question

Dear Diana, we'll leave you with this: If we truly believe both men and women deserve dignity, autonomy, and fulfillment - how do we create relationships where neither party must disappear for the other to thrive?

That's the conversation worth having. Not about who should serve whom, but about how two whole people can build something beautiful together.

 

With respect and in pursuit of truth,

The Gent

 

Note: We invite our readers to share their thoughts on this exchange. What does partnership mean to you? How do we honor both tradition and evolution, both strength and tenderness, both autonomy and connection? Write to us. The conversation continues.

RELATED: A mother’s heartfelt plea for the return of grace in modern woman

RELATED: When she talks like a man: One brother’s concern about modern relationships


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