11 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Cosmopolitan
What Is 'Broke Man Propaganda?'
Summer is here and 'Broke Man Propaganda' is in the air—at least according to certain Materialists viewers who have taken to social media to air some grievances re: the hit movie's supposedly happy ending. (Spoiler alert: This article obviously contains spoilers on the ending of Materialists.) For those just tuning in, here's an exceptionally brief rundown of the plot:
Dakota Johnson plays Lucy, a professional matchmaker whose career in setting up high-networth individuals seemingly reflects her own views of romantic relationships as inherently transactional. A single gal looking for a wealthy partner to support her, Lucy's head is naturally turned by Harry (Pedro Pascal), a successful tech founder, at a client's wedding. But guess who's also at the wedding? Lucy's ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans), a struggling actor who's working a catering gig. And guess why they broke up? Money troubles. More standard romance movie plottage ensues and in the end, Lucy breaks things off with the wealthy new love interest she thought she always wanted and marries her broke ex-boyfriend, because it turns out relationships aren't transactional and love really does conquer all!
This 'love is greater than money' message is a well-established trope, one that's existed for eons and has appeared in everything from fairytales and Christmas specials to The Notebook (justice for Lon). Hence why some viewers—specifically those calling 'Broke Man Propaganda' on the film—find it rather reductive. Essentially, this critique argues that the movie's moral privileging of 'true love' over financial stability neglects the economic realities women face under patriarchy and reinforces a narrative that encourages women to sacrifice their needs and desires for the sake of some kind of moral purity supposedly preserved by partnering with a man who does not, in fact, meet those needs and desires. In other words, it encourages women to settle.
While others have praised the film's message—which comes to some as a welcome pushback against a transactional view of relationships that has gained traction in recent years via TikTok trends like hypergamy and 'dating up'—many find it frustratingly unrealistic. Because while this moralistic ideal of love over money may be baked into societal mores, it is not one that's actually supported under our capitalistic society itself—particularly for women. As I've previously written, 'It's a bit of an open secret that while society decries blurring the lines between love and money, it remains structured in a way that financially rewards romantic partnership—particularly of the legal, governmentally recognized variety. From tax benefits to the possibility of finally clearing the wage gap by saying 'I do' to a man's salary, the allure of patriarchally sanctioned partnership is strong.'
Our current era may mark the first time in recent history that financial stability independent of a male partner is a possibility for women as a class, but the reality is that this level of fiscal security remains out of reach for many, if not most, women as individuals.
This is not to argue that love is or should be transactional, but rather to point out that this idea of 'true love' unadulterated by financial or other seemingly less 'pure' considerations is a myth—and it remains a myth because of the very patriarchal systems that were literally designed to render women dependent on men in the first place. To women who lack the financial freedom to access the romantic freedom required to pursue relationships based purely on love without regard for survival or stability, the apparent moral of the Materialists story being that we should choose the poor man over the rich one can feel like a slap in the face. Hence, Broke Man Propaganda.
The frustration with this apparent display of Broke Man Propaganda currently playing out online is not about women being 'golddiggers,' wanting to marry for money, or foisting their unreasonable fiscal demands upon men. It's about the exhaustion of existing under a patriarchal society that was literally built to keep us financially dependent on romantic relationships with men yet simultaneously shames us for making financially advantageous choices in our love lives. For many of us, the financial freedom to choose the poor man based on love alone is the dream. And for too many of us, it's one that remains out of reach.
