The Broke Boyfriend hug: it’s a nearly ubiquitous sign of a bum. A man who stands behind his girlfriend while she pays for him, holding onto her waist with such white-knuckled grip that you might think that he’s holding onto the very concept of his masculinity; and you wouldn’t be far off. The face-reddening, ego-shrinking admission of need spits in the face of traditional gender norms, to such an extent that even self-proclaimed feminists recoil at the sight.
You can’t turn on the radio, regardless of the station you’re tuned into, without hearing songs exemplifying the public distaste for Broke Boyfriends. Songs like Ain’t Shit by Doja Cat, No Broke Boys by Disco Lines & Tinashe, and the mainstay of the anti-brokey genre, No Scrubs by TLC, have long invaded the air waves. No matter your relationship status or financial standing, it’s impossible to not echo the “I know that’s right!” in Up after Cardi B says that broke boys don’t deserve no… kitty (or so goes the censored version). But where did this rhetoric emerge?
Logically, it likely stems from the origin of most male/female relationship dynamics: patriarchy. Under patriarchal thought, women require a man to take care of them, as they are deemed as incapable and incompetent. From birth, this role is often filled by their father, until it is ultimately replaced by a capable husband. This is feminism 101 stuff; it goes without saying. However, as time passes and this concept becomes camouflaged and more insidious, it invades every corner of society, repackaged into something that is socially acceptable.
Instead of this concept being understood as an outdated product of patriarchy, it is now a prop of mainstream, so-called ‘feminist’ thought. It’s thought of empowering as opposed to degrading, and in some ways it is.
While men are expected to provide financially, women must also provide. The tasks of childcare, cooking, cleaning, and maintaining a stable family life are all stereotypical responsibilities of women. Although society has mostly shifted away from cut and dry gender roles, it isn’t yet commonplace in straight partnerships for this work to be split equally.
Men have, as they tend to do, shirked the responsibility that is being asked of them. They opted to instead pretend to embrace the societal progression, while not picking up any of the slack. Women are forced to pick up the mantle of financial contribution while still shouldering the burden of work at home. Men have shown, time and time again, that they are unwilling to share in the work of homemaking, so is it not an illogical conclusion that money—and, to a lesser extent, love—is all a man is good for.
If a man will not help out in the home, he better have money and lots of it. It is through this lens that the anti-brokey phenomenon sweeping the nation becomes understandable. This, paired with human nature, of course.
We all desire safety, comfort, and to be supported by those around us. This thought can easily be extended to modern dating and result in prioritization of those with money. Women are more likely to share this desire publicly, as you can imagine what would happen if a man proudly stated his wish to be taken care of by the woman in their relationship.
It is in this double standard where the true issue arises. There is nothing wrong with wanting your partner to take care of you, in fact, it is vital that partners take care of each other in turn. However, no matter how human this urge is, it is unacceptable for men to express it. They are expected to have it all together, to have everything figured out, emotionally and financially. This presupposition is programed into all of our consciences, which is why The Broke Boyfriend elicits such a strong response.
The Broke Boyfriend is only a problem when there is a lack of effort or respect. It is inevitable that most of us will be broke in our lifetimes, whether we like it or not. This does not mean that we are undeserving of love and companionship. If we become sedentary and ungrateful for those keeping us afloat, however, perhaps the argument would have more ground to stand on.
As women are forced to operate within patriarchal society and thus, bear the burden of bioessentialism, regurgitating these talking points is not a sin; it is merely a symptom of existence. However, being a victim of patriarchy does not give you license to perpetuate it. Although women must bear the brunt of misogynistic ideology, it doesn’t make them incapable of furthering it, even with regards to their treatment of men.
It is only when we unpack the automatic assumption that a provider must be male that true equality of the genders can occur. This archaic, patriarchal archetype must be shattered in favor of adopting a more empathetic framework. Money ebbs and flows, and as such, relationships cannot be based on such a fickle thing.
With all that being said, please just be normal when your girlfriend buys you Chipotle, no one wants to see all that.
