If you’re chronically online and Tiktok is your main source of news and entertainment (guilty as charged), you would have noticed the “If he wanted to he would” trend. It’s masses of girls pointing out what their boyfriends, fiances or husbands have done for them, that match the same amount of energy they have put into relationships.
I think it is not too presumptuous to say that men in our day and age are less romantic than the past. Just imagine, would anyone in this day and age really pull a Noah and build a house, from scratch might I add, for his other half as per the movie The Notebook? Honestly, in the patriarchal society we live in, a good portion of men do not reciprocate the energy women put into their relationships because it may seem too effeminate or “soft” for them. As a result, situationships and relationships become one-sided, and often, women are the one on the receiving end. Even when the relationship is solidified in marriage for example, women are still paying the price mentally and physically, juggling huge workloads of housekeeping and their careers (you can check out articles on those here and here). Besides pointing out this inequality, it is also an opportunity for women to remind each other not to settle for a man who couldn’t be bothered just for the sake of it. Looking at our parent’s generation, it’s clear that such a settlement will just bring more misery and unhappiness in the future.
Yet, while I scrolled mindlessly through this trend and see the phrase pop up on nearly any caption describing a romantic gesture, I can’t help but be bristled. It assumes many things. For example, one content creator pointed out that the trend assumes that the man has the capacity to give endlessly. Some people just have a smaller capacity to give as compared than others, whether it be because of personality, family background, previous traumas, mental health etc. The problem isn’t really about giving, and more about finding the right person who has a similar capacity as you.
While of course, on the surface men always have the choice, it is presumptuous to assume what they want and do not want to do. Behaviours like romantic gestures are subjective. For example, to some, flowers are a romantic gesture, and to others, it is a practical waste. What is considered ‘romantic’ depends largely on your definition of romance, and the definition of romance within a relationship. For example, some couples love to spend the day lazing about in bed, while others find the notion of pottery classes romantically attractive. So while on the surface, the man’s behaviour may seem insensitive or unromantic, without the context of the relationship or person, it is difficult to categorise the behaviour so superficially.
Deeper than that, the trend can appear classist on some levels. For example, I saw this instagram post of a woman with a huge bouquet of flowers that surely costs at least over $100. Of course, if her man is wealthy, such a bouquet of flowers is just a small gesture. On the other hand, if it is someone working a minimum wage job, you can’t possibly expect the person to spend $100 on a gift for you when they really could be spending it on food or bills or something of more survival utility. When the trend becomes applicable to material things, it creates this notion that materials are what buys you love and affection. While gifts as a love language is entirely valid, gifts do not have to be such big and lavish things. Taking into account the person’s financial situation is important before the hasty judgement of the man not loving his woman enough is passed.
Generally, the trend talks about behaviours and small gestures, which reflects the attitudes and values the man has towards his significant other and the relationship. However, I would be mindful about simply passing the “if he wanted, he would” comment on someone else’s relationship, particularly if it’s one you know nothing about.