Hearkening to the 50s or the 60s or 70s as the ideal? That is the impression I sometimes get from the titles of articles posted at The Art of Manliness. For example: How to Stock a Home Bar. Though I haven't really watched the show, images of Mad Men and TV shows from the late 50s and early 60s (I Dream of Jeannie?) flash in my mind. The lifestyle of mid-20th ce American bourgeoisie. Other posts recall the chivalry of yesteryear: The Ins and Outs of Opening a Door for a Woman.
This is retroconservatism at its best? Worst?
(1) Such a lifestyle and its possessions entail wealth and a system of cheap energy without which the lifestyle of the "middle class" would not be possible.
(2) It presumes that women and men are still being raised the way and that social expectations towards sex, courtship, married life, and male and female roles are the same. If her family is traditional and they've raised the daughter to be that way, maybe it's safe to use the courtship practices of the past. Otherwise, with a woman of unknown background and values, you are not warranted on relying on her words. She has to qualify herself to you, even if she is "Catholic."
AoM does offer a useful guide for being a man (probably acceptable advice to Gamers for aspiring alphas:
The 5 Switches of Manliness: Physicality and What to Wear on a First Date), but what social rules and expectations does it promote, what standards should men be living up to? "Marriage 1.0"? How useful is the dating/relationship advice if it just supports the pedestalization of women? The Manosphere would just laugh it off. What do the married men who talk about Game or the Christians of the Manosphere say about dating practices?
This may be more acceptable: 10 Cheap Date Ideas She’ll Actually Love. Players and PUAs will keep it as cheap as possible while maximizing the benefits from their relationships. But even Christians and traditionally-minded men have reasons not to spend too much while sifting through prospective spouses. Still, dinner dates seem to be the norm for the writers at AoM; there's no going dutch or letting the woman pay.
I think a man should be hesitant about accepting the beta provider role until she's showed that she's qualified to be the right one. Should a man be so concerned to show that one is worthy to the woman during the initial stages, instead of just "exhibiting his character" and putting the burden of proof on her? Is this "fair?" Should she be the one demonstrating value first?
She should be capable of observing for herself what his character is like in how he interacts with others. As for verifying that he can be support a family -- that is an important consideration, but is it as important as character? Is one date enough for a man to know if a woman is traditional enough?
As I saw that she had updated her blog, I can ask what would a Catholic woman like Dawn Eden say about the complaints and comments in the Manosphere?
The Duties of the Best Man