We have spent decades being told that a man’s job is to provide, protect, and, if he’s particularly progressive, occasionally help with the dishes. How cute! He must be ambitious enough to build a life, financially stable enough to sustain one, and masculine enough to make everyone around him feel that everything is under control. Society has a rather extensive job description for the ideal man, from being the family’s breadwinner to being the person who walks you home at night. What it seems to have forgotten to include is a basic understanding of the world he is supposedly protecting you from.
Because what does it mean to be a provider if you have no interest in the policies that determine who gets access to healthcare, education, safety, or even the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies? What good is being protective if you have never questioned why women have to think about their safety in the first place? A man can insist on paying for dinner, offer to pick you up, and call himself a gentleman, but if he treats the rights of the woman sitting across from him as a matter of personal opinion, maybe we need to revisit the job description.
This is where being apolitical becomes an increasingly uncomfortable answer to what a man stands for. In 2026, politics is not some distant spectacle reserved for television debates and people who enjoy arguing in family WhatsApp groups. It shapes the conditions in which we live, the freedoms we have, and the decisions that affect our everyday lives. For women, these questions are hardly theoretical. Policies and laws can shape our safety, choices and autonomy, often in deeply personal ways. Saying politics has nothing to do with you is one thing. To claim it has nothing to do with the woman you want to date is quite another.
But in 2026, what exactly are we supposed to do with a man who spends weeks trying to win our attention but cannot spare five minutes to think about the things that affect our lives?
The dating landscape has changed considerably since the days of cinematic yearning. Dating apps have made meeting people easier, casual relationships have become more visible, and conversations about splitting the bill, emotional labour and what men and women owe each other have entered the group chat. The internet has given everyone a seemingly endless supply of potential partners, along with enough dating advice to make falling in love feel like preparing for a job interview. And somewhere between curated Hinge profiles and the man who says he is looking for something real until reality arrives, women have become increasingly familiar with the performance.
Women want more than a man who wants them. They want to know what he stands for.
The Problem With Being Apolitical
Let's establish something before the self-proclaimed neutral men arrive in the comments section to say they simply don't like politics. Nobody is asking a potential boyfriend to recite the Constitution on a first date. You don't need an opinion on every international conflict or to know the voting history of every legislator. There is a difference between acknowledging the limits of your knowledge and deciding the world isn't your problem.
For many women, this distinction is precisely what makes being apolitical such a turn-off. Aditi Magesh, a freelance designer, tells me politics affects everything, from access to water and transportation to human rights, and that someone who identifies as apolitical can seem privileged enough not to be affected by the country's political climate. "They lack empathy for others to a point where they cannot put themselves in other people's shoes. That's not someone I want to spend my life with," she says.
Tanvi Seth, who works in music marketing and label relations, makes a similar distinction between knowing everything and knowing enough to recognise right from wrong. "I understand that we don't get the depth of politics and global/national policies all the time. Hell, I don't either, but even the most unaware person knows the difference between basic right and wrong," she says. "And if you can't make a stand there, I'm just gonna assume you don't have a spine."
It is a fair point. Being politically informed is a process, and nobody arrives at adulthood with a perfectly formed understanding of every issue. What becomes harder to excuse is the unwillingness to learn, especially when those questions affect people around you directly.
For women, the personal has always been political, whether the men in their lives acknowledge it or not. Our safety determines when we leave a party, how we get home, what we wear, and whom we trust. Our reproductive rights determine what choices we can make about our own bodies. The language used to discuss women's sexuality can determine whether we are treated with dignity or reduced to a collection of moral judgements. These are not hypothetical concerns confined to television panels. They shape ordinary decisions, often before we have even left the house.
Debodipta Moitra, an associate at an IT firm, puts it particularly well: "That view dictates what food is acceptable on a table, the clothes in an almirah, the time at which it's 'safe' and 'unsafe' to be out of home, what sudden addition to your vanity can make you a slut and what the medicine drawer looks like."
Read that again. Politics is not an abstract conversation happening somewhere far away, conducted by people whose lives have nothing to do with yours. It enters your home, your relationships, your friendships, and your dating life. And if a man wants to share that life with you, it is reasonable to expect him to care about the conditions under which you live it.
When Indifference Becomes A Relationship Problem
There is a particular kind of frustration in realising that someone can perfectly understand your feelings when they concern him, but suddenly become confused when those feelings require him to acknowledge someone else's reality. A man can understand why you are upset that he forgot your birthday, but somehow struggle to understand why a political decision affecting millions of women matters to you. He can passionately defend his right to an opinion but become uncomfortable when you exercise yours. He can call himself a feminist in private and remain silent when his friends make misogynistic jokes.
Vrushali Kadam, a feminist research and policy consultant, sees being apolitical as self-centredness and an inability to recognise the inequalities that shape the world. For her, lacking a feminist outlook, particularly within a man's own social circles, is a deal-breaker. “I truly believe that being apolitical is really not a thing,” she says, calling it “the most political act a person can perform” and a testament to the privilege that lets someone disengage.
Priyuta Sodiwala, who works in communications, similarly argues that calling oneself apolitical or moderate can become a way of ignoring issues that affect other people. For her, the issue isn't simply which political party a man supports, but the values that shape his worldview. "Being liberal and raising your voice is the bare minimum as a responsible citizen and to make this country liveable," she says.
Of course, there is a distinction between choosing not to discuss politics at every available opportunity and choosing not to care about injustice. There is also a distinction between a man who doesn't know enough about an issue and one who refuses to learn because the issue doesn't affect him personally. The former can educate himself; the latter has already decided whose problems count.
Anoushka Madan, a freelance journalist, believes this has become particularly important in the Indian context, where women have grown up watching their boundaries being pushed and their experiences normalised or dismissed. "There needs to be a basic understanding, at least some level of acknowledgement of what women go through on a daily basis," she says.
/filters:format(webp)/elle-india/media/media_files/2026/10/12/83baaef0b16dc5a408c4b666ff0beccc-2026-10-12-16-47-46.jpg)
And when you have the freedom to choose whom you date, that choice matters. Madan points out that political alignment has become a deal-breaker because it reveals far more than someone's voting preference. It offers a glimpse into how they view other people and the world they want to inhabit. As she puts it, "as a woman who actually has the freedom to pick someone to date (as opposed to women who have no choice at all) it's even more important that this is factored in."
This is where the argument shifts from whether a man is sufficiently political to whether he recognises women as people whose lives are affected by the decisions made around them. If he wants the intimacy, companionship, and emotional labour of a relationship with a woman, can he really claim that the conditions affecting her freedom have nothing to do with him?
The Date Who Was An Expert In Everything
Sometimes, the problem is not that a man has no political opinions. It is that he has plenty of them, delivered with the confidence of someone who has never considered that he might be wrong.
Sri Parna, a social media consultant, shared an experience with a man she matched with on a dating app that illustrates the point. The man described himself as an avid reader and, during their conversation, announced that he was "an expert in war and geopolitics and economics". Parna, who studied economics for her master's degree and had read extensively about American politics, found his confidence amusing. She decided to test that certainty by asking him about a major international conflict. The conversation was going reasonably well until their views sharply diverged.
The exchange eventually led her to a bigger question: the values a potential partner brings to a relationship. "I would never date someone who believes killing children was justified for whatever reason," she says. For Parna, this isn't about having the right political label or being able to cite a particular political theorist. "I am not saying being left-leaning automatically makes you empathetic. You don't need to read Che Guevara or study Marxist political theories or strategies. You just need to have basic human empathy."
Her point is worth holding. Political vocabulary isn't a substitute for moral clarity, just as arguing confidently isn't the same as being willing to question your assumptions. In a dating culture where everyone tries to appear interesting, intelligent, and desirable, it is easy to confuse a man who can hold forth on geopolitics with one who has actually engaged with its human consequences.
To me, that's a far more useful measure of political compatibility than whether two people vote for the same party. A man who can admit he doesn't know enough about an issue and is willing to learn is very different from one who treats every challenge to his worldview as a personal attack. One can grow; the other expects everyone around him to accommodate his certainty.
Can You Love Someone Whose Politics You Disagree With?
The answer, unsurprisingly, is not a universal no. Some of the women I spoke to are open to disagreement, provided it does not come at the expense of another person's dignity. Vedika Sukhatme, a content creator and teacher, tells me she would be unlikely to date someone whose politics differ significantly from hers unless he could offer a logical argument, engage in nuanced conversations, and respect differences without turning them into ego battles.
"Politics isn't always just about political parties or policies; it can reveal a lot about how someone views equality, autonomy, human rights, and their responsibility towards others," she says. "Attraction might bring two people together, but shared values, mutual respect, and character are what allow them to build something meaningful."
Arpita Hota, a freelance journalist, shares a similar perspective. She is open to dating someone with different political opinions because she values being challenged and reconsidering how she sees the world. But she draws a firm line between disagreeing on policy and disagreeing on someone's fundamental rights. If a person dismisses issues affecting women simply because they do not inconvenience him, the disagreement stops being an interesting intellectual exercise and becomes a question of values.
Seth captures this distinction through a line by author Robert Jones Jr.: "We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist."
These questions matter because relationships don't exist in a vacuum. The person you date is also a citizen, a friend, a colleague, a family member, and someone whose values will inevitably shape the world around you. You can have spectacular chemistry with someone and still discover you disagree on what makes someone deserving of respect. At that point, no amount of yearning can fix it.
So, What Happened To The Lover Boy?
Perhaps he is still out there, making playlists, planning dates, reading the room, and performing everything the internet has told him a desirable man should do. Perhaps he has learnt to talk about emotional intelligence, therapy, and feminism, and can even name a few female authors to impress you. None of that is inherently bad. In fact, the willingness to learn, communicate, and understand a partner is precisely what makes a relationship worth pursuing.
But being desirable isn't simply about getting a woman to like you. It is also about what happens after she does. The man who yearns for you but does not care about your autonomy is still asking you to separate the person he wants from the person you are. He wants the relationship without reckoning with the world you inhabit.
And women are increasingly unwilling to make that distinction for him. Honestly, in this economy, women have better things to do than teach a grown man the difference.