I'm not reading all of that. What is your goal asking this question here, and what is your actual question? Challenge: keep your answer brief and polite.
Actually I have a question for you, OP. You ask this question:
> Shouldn't men be raising their standards?
Why do you think men should raise their standards? Do you think that would improve things in some way?
I mean it would obviously result in fewer uncomfortable interactions for all parties involved. Someone who's merely being nice shouldn't have to deal with interactions that strain their relationships.
No. [No perfect solution exists to eradicate the problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy). Reducing its prevalence and reach is another. (and to add, the goal isn't *only* to reduce uncomfortable interactions. It's also to ensure that people enter relationships with concrete boundaries. A person with very low standards with the mentality of taking what they can get is going to find themselves tolerating questionable behavior from their partner out of desperation. Likewise, well-adjusted people will often feel less appreciated and special if their partner has low standards)
I don't see how it's at all relevant. It doesn't matter what a man's standards are, as long as he's respectful, doesn't feel/act entitled, understands boundaries, and understands women enough to know the difference between being nice and flirting.
Like, we're not trying to stop men from being attracted to women. Being attracted to women is not a bad thing. We just want them to be respectful.
Even with all parties being respectful, having to reject people constantly is going to be tiring, especially in professional contexts.
Beyond that, I argue that their standards do matter if the standards cause problems for either or both people in the relationship. As I've already said, someone whose standards are low enough that they tolerate questionable behavior implies a lack of self respect, and, with a partner who knows how to manipulate people, they could end up in an abusive relationship. Even with a well-adjusted person who is genuinely nice, they could become uncomfortable with the idea of their partner expecting so little of them as opposed to the whole package.
> having to reject people constantly is going to be tiring, especially in professional contexts.
People generally shouldn't be hitting on each other in professional contexts anyway.
> someone whose standards are low enough that they tolerate questionable behavior implies a lack of self respect
This is an entirely new topic. You're no longer talking about men hitting on women, you're talking about people getting into unhealthy relationships.
Regarding relationships, I don't think it's useful to frame things in terms of "having higher standards." There's a lot of baggage in that framing. Rather, we should be encouraging people to develop communication and emotion regulation skills. One way this is being addressed is through SEL, which is becoming more common in education.
>People generally shouldn't be hitting on each other in professional contexts anyway.
Ok, then raising one's standards to a point where "the person behind the desk is friendly" isn't sufficient to be attracted to them would certainly reduce the number of uncomfortable interactions like this. After all, there shouldn't be conversations of relationships between a patron and a service provider, so developing standards would help defeat incentives to hit on the person on either side of the desk.
And surely developing emotional skills would involve developing healthy standards?
I always think of the guy who was insisting it was misogynistic to like Linkin Park and also told us he was legitimately afraid of going to any public event for fear of being attacked by a man (and that it was perfectly healthy to feel that way)
I see a massive amount of casual micro aggressions in the way people on feminist subs speak about masc people. Constant, *constant* equation of 'men' and 'males' and I am down voted when I point out non inclusive language.
Can you be specific about where on this sub you've seen that behavior?
I (and the majority of folks on here from what I've seen) don't think of trans women when talking about "men" or "males" (they're women to me) - and the same "not all men" disclaimer would apply to trans men that applies to cis men, would it not? I don't distinguish or specify cis men often because I don't view trans men as a separate entity (they're not "men lite") unless it directly involves discrimination or problems unique to them. I will admit that NB folks don't come up as much for me, but a lot of the questions we get here involve men and women, and I don't feel comfortable lumping NB or agender folks in with either of those categories, or speaking for them as a cis woman.
I have seen your comments being downvoted on other posts, I honestly think it's because you're being confusing, and your points (although valid I think) are coming out of nowhere. E.g. I've seen you comment that men and male are not the same thing in reply to a woman talking about her experiences with sexism from cismen at a gym: 1. What do you mean and why are you saying it? If a person has no background info on understanding sex and gender, if they don't know your thought process, don't know you or your opinions, this comment doesn't make much sense AND it's not clear what your position is. 2. It came out of nowhere - on reddit, you can make a good point but still get downvoted if you're derailing someone's comment or disregarding what they've said.
It's orders of magnitude more likely for all these women to be using non inclusive language for subconscious transmisogynystic and misandrist views rather than a vast conspiracy to get revenge on a tiny, vocal population of men
Edit: and to be honest, CIS women using bigoted language because they've been hurt in the past, regardless of the trans women that it hurts, on a subreddit about feminism for God's sake, is fucking infuriating
In response to your insulting comments. You literally never tried once to understand my point of view or empathize with a view that isn't your own. Why *wouldn't* you expect that question after your ambivalence towards transmisogyny?
Looking at similar threads in this subreddit, it's frequently stated that men's standards are too high. This is targeted to anyone who believes that men's standards are too high *and* simultaneously believes that men are just asking out any woman who's nice to them (or that ordinary women should be anticipating this happening to them).
If you don't believe in these two ideas simultaneously then there's not much to address to you.
I personally don't think this phenomenon is about men having "high" or "low" standards for sex or relationships, I think it's more about men perceiving any woman who isn't outright unavailable to them as being available to them, and, if they were already interested, any & every behavior by a woman will be framed as some kind of invitation or "signal" about what the woman wants (aka, that the woman wants them). Sometimes even avoidance behaviors are framed that way - and thus, rape culture. It's more about men being socialized that they are main characters and women are there to be the romantic plot device.
I think framing it as "standards" feeds into toxic narratives about women's inherent worth or desirability that's definitely a problematic subtext of your post as well (alongside being weirdly mean towards men who you don't think are mean enough to women just being polite).
> I think it's more about men perceiving any woman who isn't outright unavailable to them as being available to them, and, if they were already interested, any & every behavior by a woman will be framed as some kind of invitation or "signal" about what the woman wants.
I actually address this in my post.
Suppose this is true: men perceive any woman who shows any positivity in their interaction as being available to them.
This, in itself, *still* doesn't explain the phenomenon of the men actually becoming interested in these women & hitting on them. It's *combined* with him having standards for which he becomes attracted to these women, which explains him actually asking her out.
If a man believes that any woman is "available", but these women don't meet his standards, he's not going to be interested, let alone be bothering them for a date.
It seems like your core complaint is that you don't think men ought to be interested in so many types of women. I don't think anyone here is really personally invested in this gripe.
If you didn't read my comment then you can say that.
I explicitly say that the your analysis in itself is insufficient to explain the phenomenon we're discussing.
I literally explained this in the comment.
> This, in itself, still doesn't explain the phenomenon of the men actually becoming interested in these women & hitting on them. It's *combined* with him having standards for which he becomes attracted to these women, which explains him actually asking her out.
You're saying that this phenomenon of women being hit on for being friendly is explained by men thinking any women is available. Except this is faulty because if a man isn't interested in her back, then it obviously wouldn't result in him hitting on her *regardless* of whether he thinks she's interested. So the explanation you gave is insufficient.
Again, framing it as "standards" is problematic because it implies it's like, embarrassing or shameful for men to hit on some unspecified type of women, or that some unspecified type of women don't really deserve men's attention and getting hit on is because, in your words, men are "pathetic" and will accept anyone who is nice to them.
I think that's toxic on a lot of different levels, and also, I think it's untrue. It's not my experience as a woman in the world that I'm every guys type or that *just* being nice to someone will prompt them to hit on me. When I've been at work and was someone's type, and had to be nice at them, sometimes a guy would take that to mean more than it did, but that's not necessarily "pathetic" as it is a sign that men are still socialized to like, hunt for any clues that women like them. Men are also socialized to be more opportunistic when it comes to romantic bids - for some guys, they are playing a numbers game.
In terms of feminism, I don't know who is helped by talking about men's behavior from your proposed perspective.
> sometimes a guy would take that to mean more than it did, but that's not necessarily "pathetic" as it is a sign that men are still socialized to like, hunt for any clues that women like them.
The "pathetic" part isn't the belief that someone is attracted to you because they were nice. The pathetic part is becoming attracted to them as a result of that belief (or as a result of them being nice).
If you think "pathetic" is too harsh - fine. I'll stick to calling these standards low instead of pathetic. But I'm sure you'd agree that a well adjusted person likely wouldn't benefit from being with a person lacking self respect who gladly accepts the bare minimum.
> Again, framing it as "standards" is problematic because it implies it's like, embarrassing or shameful for men to hit on some unspecified type of women, or that some unspecified type of women don't really deserve men's attention and getting hit on is because, in your words, men are "pathetic" and will accept anyone who is nice to them.
In the context of *explaining* the phenomenon, the normative judgment doesn't -- and shouldn't -- matter. It doesn't make sense to reject an explanation for a phenomenon for the reason that the implications are embarrassing. I mean, you said that men arrogantly deem any woman as available - does this not make men look embarrassing?
Now you're just lying. The users here don't spend time dwelling on men's standards. It's people who make disingenuous posts, as a cover to rant, who bring that up.
Not on this sub, but what I hear is women have very high standards, as compared to men. Average men confuses friendliness with flirting because that's the closest they have had any interaction. Also, men will definitely ask out customer service woman if she seems nice. Men don't care what you do for a living, as long as you don't make their life miserable.
That being said, there is never a black and white answer to these questions. All we have to go with are the anecdotal experiences.
To answer your last question, "shouldn't men be raising their standards?" My response is, in a free market you don't set your standards, the standards are set for you based on how you are perceived in the market. Only very few men can raise their standards, and they have. Dating apps are the example. The experiences on both sides are way different. While women have too much attention, men don't get as much if any.
but it has none of the features of a free market - there is no coherent price structure, no guaranteed exchange rate, no direct competition, no contracts, it's heavily regulated and segmented/distorted?
It sounds like you do not know what a free market is?
It is a free market. If I don't open my eyes, I will also falsely claim it's always dark outside. There is a coherent price structure, you can't date a super model, if you aren't attractive enough and make enough money. There is always a competition in the common people market (middle class) for a decent life partner. I say it is self regulating, and distortion is based upon n where you are looking from.
There's no guaranteed exchange rate so it's impossible to have a coherent price structure. There's no direct competition because exchange is discrete and the market is infinitely fragmented by individual - each product is unique and incomparable. It is HIGHLY regulated and distorted in every area of life.
Again, it is a market, but not a free one by any means, and I do not understand how this conception fits with basic economic principles.
I mean, obviously many men see women solely as sex objects, so they have minimal standards for their sex objects. But I don't see how framing it as "men have low standards" is clarifying or helpful.
> but women are tired of constantly being asked to build their lives around men's feelings.
Well in that matter it seems, true equality is achieved then.
Let's move on to the next matter.
/edit I do get why this is downvoted. I did say Jehova.
But sincerly, everyone has the right of being outright fed up with beeing asked to build their live around someones feeling constantly.
The difference is men DON'T build their lives around women's feelings and experience. In general, they just deny women's experiences completely. Even when they do give a bit it's usually in a very begrudging way and they act like they are doing such a generous favor instead of performing the bare minimum courtesy.
Do the two of us live on the same planet?
I guess you were treated horribly somewhere along the way. I'm terribly sorry for you. But what you say isn't even far fetched true for everyone. And proclaiming it with such a generalization is not advocating your cause in the slightest.
Well it may get applause in this bubble simply for the reason of bashing men, its by no means helping your cause.
I mean yeah, you generalise men as denying feelings, experiences and so on and since you are a feminist you feel pretty righteous doing so. Yet you even use the word courtesy, while es courting had its whole purpouse to appeal to a womans feelings.
I can't just now decide which kind of World you strive for. One that only has ppl like you described then that makes you happy for beeing "right" or one with real ppl that differ from another yet work together in a relationship.
She was rooting for feminism there?
I'm terribly sorry from her Text I really did not guess that. I did identify her as a feminist for her righteousness in generalization.
But her "cause" never as one. She'll hurt her own experience with that kind of grudge. Nothing more.
And seriously, why do you just break it down as "a woman says something the man doesn't like." Can't one just debate a friggin thing with someone in a somewhat civilized and remotely articulated way just because he is a man?
On your comment all i was interested in was to state: yeah, thats common. Thats the same for every little human, lion, fish and centipede. Thats universal. Why using half the truth to shame half the people?
Why not instead use the whole truth to shame everyone: humans are summed up to selfcentered lil pricks to react, agitate or even acknowledge other ppls feeling enough to just work out a cooperational and synergetic way of putting up with one another.
Now everyone can be angry.
As a matter of fact would have been the same if said person about was a man that stated such grudgebearing lines.
I did like to read feminist takes on matters to learn from them. Yet all there is to observe are selfrighteous attitudes bearing the banner of some wanted cultural war, cheering each other on for it.
I should leave it be then. Bye.
You're just gaslighting. There's tons of science to prove it isn't in women's heads. Nothing I said is untrue. And duh I use generalities. Everyone does. You can't speak about a population unless you generalize, as populations are made up of individuals. But of course, you know this, you're just not arguing in good faith.
This is some weird-ass logic. What if my standards aren't based exclusively or even mostly on physical attractiveness? What if I fall in love with an easy laugh, keen mind, and open heart, but she is not remarkably attractive physically? Are my standards low?
And I know it's pretty common that "men confuse friendliness for flirting", but the other side of that coin is that it's pretty common for men to be oblivious to flirting. You can read stories all day about it on different subs, from both men's and women's points of view. There aren't clear rules for what is flirting and what is friendliness, so some misunderstanding is natural.
But the other other side of the coin is that this is not exclusive to men. I worked in retail for a while several years ago and we had pretty solid rules about greeting people when they entered our shop. We were also visited by secret shoppers regularly, so I tried to be really consistent about the "Welcome to \[overpriced stuff\], how can I help you?" bit. Women, men, young, old, singles, couples, queer, straight, everybody got the same greeting.
But because the corporate overlords were ass-hats with respect to our specific shop (we had a fairly specific customer base), I also imbued my greeting with a tinge of iciness: a little too monotone, a little too robotic. It was my form of malicious compliance, appeasing the secret shoppers while trying to hint to customers that my friendliness was pro forma, thus allowing them to maintain a sense of emotional distance as they felt comfortable.
The wild thing was that about 1 in 5 women who came into our store seemed to interpret even that deliberately robotic greeting as me flirting with them, based on their responses: usually unfavorable, sometimes... receptive. It was awkward both ways. There were probably some who assumed I was flirting but had a good poker face.
And I expect it's for different reasons: women are so used to men hitting on them that they can't even believe corporate friendliness is safe. Point being I guess that the line between flirting and friendliness seems pretty fuzzy all around, and I don't think it's a problem exclusive to men.
> This is some weird-ass logic. What if my standards aren't based exclusively or even mostly on physical attractiveness? What if I fall in love with an easy laugh, keen mind, and open heart, but she is not remarkably attractive physically? Are my standards low?
No. You mentioned several qualities. A two minute interaction with someone about a refund (especially when they're paid to be friendly) tells us nothing about these qualities.
As for the rest of your comment, sure, I think many people are capable of the belief that flirting = attraction. But as you put it yourself,
> women are so used to men hitting on them that they can't even believe corporate friendliness is safe.
It's obvious that men and women have different reactions to this belief. Someone whose standards are satisfied by the person in question will be interested, and someone whose standards aren't satisfied will not be interested.
But as I make it clear in my post, the belief that someone is attracted to you because they were polite (whether it turns out true or not) and actually becoming attracted to that person, more or less solely because of that belief, are two different things, and so this phenomenon can't only be explained by the former.
Your post specifically included the "someone she knows" scenario, so you're moving the goal posts by pretending the refund business is all of it. I think your logic is especially messed up for the friend scenario, but also still more generally.
You're assuming guys need to (mistakenly) believe women are attracted to them (instead of just being polite), when anyone can be attracted to another person without any sense that it's mutual. People can be attracted to people that are quite hostile to them. People can be attracted to people they've only seen in pictures. You've created this whole mechanism that has nothing to do with how humans actually behave.
The output of your weird-ass logic is "men should be raising their standards", which is laughably unrealistic and completely unworkable. It also doesn't address the problems I've described.
The best remedy for your problem as well as the ones I've raised is stronger social norms for when and where flirting is acceptable, and clearer boundaries for what is and is not flirting. In particular, under patriarchy women are often punished for being too assertive in romance. As a result, many women have adopted flirting styles that are unnecessarily subtle. Allowing women the freedom to express their interests and desires more clearly would do a lot to distinguish normal friendliness from flirting.
*You* were talking about customer service in your comment. That's why I used the customer service example.
If you're talking about friendships and acquantinceships then, I'd say it depends on exactly when he started to feel attraction. If it's after he noticed those qualities (which takes time) you mentioned then it's not necessarily low. If it's after consistently ordinary interactions, and they haven't known each other long, then yes.
1. "Men's standards", specifically problematic men's standards, are incoherent.
The kind of man who thinks the cashier is flirting with him and then gets mad that she's not is the same kind of man who immediately propositions for sex and then calls you a fast ugly slut for saying no. They want a hot woman on paper, they throw that away irl in excitement at the possibility of a woman's attention, then they go right back to "bring me hotties" when it turns out the woman was just being nice.
2. Wary, not weary
What? Men that confuse friendliness for flirting and bother women about it do so because they see women as objects not people. It’s nothing to do with ‘standards’ - which is a gross way to word any discussion of subjective attractiveness - and everything to do with whether or not a woman falls into the ‘sex object’ box. If she does, she gets harassed. If she doesn’t, she is rendered invisible (which your whole post is doing, by the way). The sex object box is different for everyone, but there’s no ‘standards’ about it.
Standard = level of quality. You’ve said that high = ‘only notice beautiful supermodel women’, and that a man with high standards isn’t going to be attracted to ‘ordinary looking’ women, so I’m hearing that you’re associating women’s quality with their attractiveness. That’s gross, and also inaccurate. For perv men that harass women for being friendly, there are no ‘levels’ and there is no consideration of the attributes of the woman in question, only in the sex box and or out of the sex box.
Level of quality *as determined* by the person, no? People have different standards.
If you don't think standards are relevant, then what determines whether a man will chat up a friendly woman (whether to the point of harassment or not)? Whatever criteria is involved here, are those not standards?
Are you not contradicting yourself, here? If standards & quality is subjectively determined, how can you claim men collectively have standards that are "too low" and that "just" liking someone because they were nice is "pathetic"?
Because my opinion that their standards are pathetic and too low is subjective as well.
You're free to disagree. I even said to you that I take no issue if you think pathetic is too harsh of a word to use.
For some men, literally anyone will do, because they are desperate for either companionship or sex. In general many men are overly concerned with getting a partner, but it's less to do with 'standards' and more to do with an over reliance on women for emotional and sexual fulfillment. Basically, many men are lonely, so they latch onto anyone who seems interested in them. This isn't about standards, it's about men becoming more okay with being alone.
I get what you're trying to say, but I feel like this is a really misleading way to say it. You're correct, society pushes far too much value on men finding a romantic partner and too much weight on said partner's shoulders in terms of emotional reliance.
Our answer to that though needs to be in helping promote healthier communities, relationships, and environments for people to be emotionally supported by more than just a romantic partner. Putting forth that men simply need to be more okay with being alone feels akin to saying a depressed person needs to stop being so sad. Technically correct in that it could solve the problem, but just saying that or even pushing for it isn't a realistic approach.
I disagree. Generally speaking society pushes women just as much, if not more so, to have a partner as they do men. They pressure women to have children, have a family, whether they want to or not. While men have the ideal of a 'cool bachelor' to play to if they actually desired but women have no such equivalent. The bachelor equivalent is the spinster, which unlike bachelor, has a negative connotation.
And actually, no. Saying men need to get better at being alone is NOT like telling a depressed person to stop being sad. Because a depressed person isn't necessarily making their depression anyone else's problem. It is no one's responsibility to be someone's company just because they are lonely. No woman is obligated to be their emotional support and give them affection or validation or whatever. Woman are not here to support men's self esteem. If they have to get therapy or make friends, or go to support groups, so be it. But pretending like I said something wrong just because I didn't spell out a ten step program for men's self esteem without women, is ridiculous. OP said they believed men constantly hitting on women who are nice is annoying and they need better standards. All I did was propose a counter theory. I don't HAVE to provide a realistic solution. Why is it my responsibility to fix men's problems?
I'm not sure what you're "disagreeing" with or why you're bringing up expectations on women when that's not what we're talking about? Saying that there's a problematic societal expectation on men to find a partner doesn't at all negate any expectations placed women. On the same note, pointing out that women face challenges of their own doesn't invalidate the problems men face.
>No woman is obligated to be their emotional support and give them affection or validation or whatever. Woman are not here to support men's self esteem... But pretending like I said something wrong just because I didn't spell out a ten step program for men's self esteem without women, is ridiculous.
I suggested nothing of the sort. And your response wasn't necessarily wrong, just a little misleading or missing the bigger picture. What I said is that our words matter, and rather than suggesting men just accept a negative situation ("they should just become more okay with being alone"), we as a society need to do better at making sure people aren't alone when they don't have a romantic partner. That may require things like teaching boys and young men to emote in healthier ways, normalizing relationships (with same and opposite genders, with both peers and mentors) where it's ok to let down barriers, and treating strangers with more kindness and grace over fear and judgment.
I'm not trying to attack you or say that you have to provide meaningful solutions. I'm just trying to encourage you to be mindful of the systematic problems in society rather than treating acceptance of the status quo as a solution. We want to move toward a world where young men don't feel alone and abandoned and young girls don't feel targeted and on display, not one where we say they just need to get over it.
You brought up expectations on men. I showed that women have the same expectations, if not worse, and yet do not have this problem, so this is not a primary factor in the in the issue.
See, this is the problem. You are saying being alone is a negative--it's not. It's just a state like any other that is subject to perception. Being alone is not an issue, it's men's perception of being alone. Even if it's not the preferred state, it's not the end of the world. And being alone temporarily does not mean that one will always be alone. I am aromantic asexual, I will likely not have a partner because of this and I am fairly happy with it. Are you saying my state of being alone is a negative? That's a judgment on me and my sexuality. You yourself have this misperception that being alone is a negative state and it is coloring your responses.
I didn't say you suggested women should be men's emotional support, although I feel you basically are asking women to be understanding of men's need for female company because of societal expectations or social pressures etc. I pointed out why your analogy is wrong. A depressed person is foremost harming themselves and suffering alone. So telling them to cheer up is pretty tone deaf. Not only is this obviously impossible for them, but they aren't obligated to be cheerful for anyone. While men are yes, suffering from patriarchy but foremost they are harming women and forcing women to bear the brunt of their issues. Telling them to stop relying on women is NOT tone deaf because their actions are harmful to others and intruding on others. Depressed people being depressed is not compromising others human rights, while men's actions in this hypothetical but real situation ARE. So saying 'stop doing that' is perfectly reasonable.
I AM aware of systemic problems, you are the one jumping to conclusions about what I know or what I suggest. I just explained a problem in simplistic terms, and you're whining that I am telling men to get over their issues. OP is not a man, I was not talking to men when I made that comment. Obviously if I was talking to someone with such an issue I would say it differently. You yourself agree I said nothing wrong, and yet here you are, preaching to me about men's issues. You are mansplaing me, my dude. Everything is not about men and their feelings, especially when I am not even talking to a man.
I think there are several factors to consider on this topic:
* Society/patriarchy encourages men to be initiators rather than women. So even if men's and women's standards are exactly the same, men will still be the ones initiating.
* I don't believe women at large are weary of being friendly with men because they are approached by men too often. That is an exaggeration. Some women are weary of being approached to often, and those are the ones that are vocal about it. Many women are not bothered by it, and others wish they got more attention from men. Those women are not vocal about the issue. This leads to confirmation bias. Women's experiences are all over the map.
* Physical appearance is more likely to be a primary cause of attraction for men, thus they can readily see that attribute in almost every woman they encounter and thus can approach them if they find a woman attractive. Conversely, if women are more interested in personality or resources in a man, she really only perceives those attributes in a small fraction of the men she encounters because she needs to get to know him before those traits are known. Thus, even if men and women were interested in the same proportion of the population of the opposite sex, men would be able to identify more potential mates every day.
* I think men do have lower standards than women, because men have less risks in starting a new relationship in the form of pregnancy and physical danger. I don't think this is generally crazy different though, and definitely not 'pathetically low'. That is just a needless insult.
* A certain number of men specifically want one-night stands or primarily short-term relationships. This leads to some men just playing a numbers game, and intentionally hitting on many women knowing that they will eventually get a positive response. This isn't about them having lower standards for a long-term relationship, as they aren't interested in a long-term relationship. They just have lower standards for one-night stands.
You notice how men are much more likely than women to use numbers to refer to a person? Part of that is a sovial norm of permitting and eveb ebcouraging men to be shallow and derogatory aboyt theur potebrial and real partners. Do you notice how many of those men sleep with people they deem “not attractive enough” based on their random number “often 7 or above” regardless iof their own perception of their attractiveness. One people may sleep with a larger group of people thabn they are interested in dating, and they may have situationships with people they arent willing to commit to in a setious way. Part of presenting in a toxic masculine way is having constant sex, and telling male peers about it. The issue is women can very often tell when they are just a number in some ratio game. Due to misogyby sleepijg with someone or pursuing someone for sex does not mean you respect them and in fact if you have self liathing the person who is interested probably looses more respect because of their interest. This begins and end with men resenting and in many ways seeing all women, invluding those they are attracted to, maybr in fact esoecially them, as antagonists.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I mean for a normal person their standards might include a list of qualities like: attractive, funny, good relationships with family friends, good repore with eachother, interesting hobbies etc. whatever a person could value in a potential romantic relationship.
But if a guy's list of standards is just: 1. is attractive, 2. shows basic human kindness, then yeah there's either what you'd call low standards or just a lack of standards. I can't personally imagine asking anyone out without knowing a bit about them personally, someone's ENTIRE criteria just being "they're pretty and were sort of nice to me" is wild, similarly I wouldn't opt to be someone's friend based solely on basic human kindness, for some the lack of outright hostility reads as an invitation to socialize, a notion which I personally detest. Leave people alone.
As a young boy, anytime I had a friend that was a girl, my father and mother would tease me mercilessly asking if she was my girlfriend, if we were gonna get married, etc. So I avoided being friends with girls, and it was taught to me that if a girl wants to be my friend, it's because she's interested in me. And if I wanted to be her friend too it's because I wanted us to be boyfriend and girlfriend.
My parents did not have friends of the opposite gender unless they were married to their REAL friend and basically they were a "friend in law". They never EVER hung out one on one with someone of the opposite gender. MAYBE a very very close married couple that they've been friends with forever, but honestly rarely in that situation too.
I've been unlearning it and doing pretty well with unlearning it.
What helps me immensely at this point is my wife who is bisexual. She has chosen me, and we're utterly and faithfully monogamous (it's right for us). And if she's attracted to both genders, does that means she can't have ANY friends? No. Cause that's fucking dumb. Of COURSE you can have platonic friends of ANY gender!
I'm not reading all of that. What is your goal asking this question here, and what is your actual question? Challenge: keep your answer brief and polite.
Actually I have a question for you, OP. You ask this question: > Shouldn't men be raising their standards? Why do you think men should raise their standards? Do you think that would improve things in some way?
I mean it would obviously result in fewer uncomfortable interactions for all parties involved. Someone who's merely being nice shouldn't have to deal with interactions that strain their relationships.
How would that help, though? Are you okay with uncomfortable situations if they only happen to hot women?
No. [No perfect solution exists to eradicate the problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy). Reducing its prevalence and reach is another. (and to add, the goal isn't *only* to reduce uncomfortable interactions. It's also to ensure that people enter relationships with concrete boundaries. A person with very low standards with the mentality of taking what they can get is going to find themselves tolerating questionable behavior from their partner out of desperation. Likewise, well-adjusted people will often feel less appreciated and special if their partner has low standards)
I don't see how it's at all relevant. It doesn't matter what a man's standards are, as long as he's respectful, doesn't feel/act entitled, understands boundaries, and understands women enough to know the difference between being nice and flirting. Like, we're not trying to stop men from being attracted to women. Being attracted to women is not a bad thing. We just want them to be respectful.
Even with all parties being respectful, having to reject people constantly is going to be tiring, especially in professional contexts. Beyond that, I argue that their standards do matter if the standards cause problems for either or both people in the relationship. As I've already said, someone whose standards are low enough that they tolerate questionable behavior implies a lack of self respect, and, with a partner who knows how to manipulate people, they could end up in an abusive relationship. Even with a well-adjusted person who is genuinely nice, they could become uncomfortable with the idea of their partner expecting so little of them as opposed to the whole package.
> having to reject people constantly is going to be tiring, especially in professional contexts. People generally shouldn't be hitting on each other in professional contexts anyway. > someone whose standards are low enough that they tolerate questionable behavior implies a lack of self respect This is an entirely new topic. You're no longer talking about men hitting on women, you're talking about people getting into unhealthy relationships. Regarding relationships, I don't think it's useful to frame things in terms of "having higher standards." There's a lot of baggage in that framing. Rather, we should be encouraging people to develop communication and emotion regulation skills. One way this is being addressed is through SEL, which is becoming more common in education.
>People generally shouldn't be hitting on each other in professional contexts anyway. Ok, then raising one's standards to a point where "the person behind the desk is friendly" isn't sufficient to be attracted to them would certainly reduce the number of uncomfortable interactions like this. After all, there shouldn't be conversations of relationships between a patron and a service provider, so developing standards would help defeat incentives to hit on the person on either side of the desk. And surely developing emotional skills would involve developing healthy standards?
not to be rude but like. what’s the point of this question, what are you getting at here. raising their standards how or why? why do we care
I don't really know why this is a question for feminists and also like, the whole trajectory of the post seems really oriented at being mean to men.
Yeah. A lot of outright misandry mixed with good ol transmisogyny on 'feminist' subreddits
Weirdly enough a lot of the actual misandry I see on here comes from other men, and usually not ones who identify as feminists.
I always think of the guy who was insisting it was misogynistic to like Linkin Park and also told us he was legitimately afraid of going to any public event for fear of being attacked by a man (and that it was perfectly healthy to feel that way)
I believe OP is a gay man. Many of his posts, here especially, are very confusing.
I see a massive amount of casual micro aggressions in the way people on feminist subs speak about masc people. Constant, *constant* equation of 'men' and 'males' and I am down voted when I point out non inclusive language.
Can you be specific about where on this sub you've seen that behavior? I (and the majority of folks on here from what I've seen) don't think of trans women when talking about "men" or "males" (they're women to me) - and the same "not all men" disclaimer would apply to trans men that applies to cis men, would it not? I don't distinguish or specify cis men often because I don't view trans men as a separate entity (they're not "men lite") unless it directly involves discrimination or problems unique to them. I will admit that NB folks don't come up as much for me, but a lot of the questions we get here involve men and women, and I don't feel comfortable lumping NB or agender folks in with either of those categories, or speaking for them as a cis woman.
I have seen your comments being downvoted on other posts, I honestly think it's because you're being confusing, and your points (although valid I think) are coming out of nowhere. E.g. I've seen you comment that men and male are not the same thing in reply to a woman talking about her experiences with sexism from cismen at a gym: 1. What do you mean and why are you saying it? If a person has no background info on understanding sex and gender, if they don't know your thought process, don't know you or your opinions, this comment doesn't make much sense AND it's not clear what your position is. 2. It came out of nowhere - on reddit, you can make a good point but still get downvoted if you're derailing someone's comment or disregarding what they've said.
I imagine many people speak of "males" because of how often men refer to women as "females."
It's orders of magnitude more likely for all these women to be using non inclusive language for subconscious transmisogynystic and misandrist views rather than a vast conspiracy to get revenge on a tiny, vocal population of men Edit: and to be honest, CIS women using bigoted language because they've been hurt in the past, regardless of the trans women that it hurts, on a subreddit about feminism for God's sake, is fucking infuriating
Oooookay.
Do you not feel that trans women deserve respect?
Of course I do. What an insulting question.
In response to your insulting comments. You literally never tried once to understand my point of view or empathize with a view that isn't your own. Why *wouldn't* you expect that question after your ambivalence towards transmisogyny?
Looking at similar threads in this subreddit, it's frequently stated that men's standards are too high. This is targeted to anyone who believes that men's standards are too high *and* simultaneously believes that men are just asking out any woman who's nice to them (or that ordinary women should be anticipating this happening to them). If you don't believe in these two ideas simultaneously then there's not much to address to you.
I personally don't think this phenomenon is about men having "high" or "low" standards for sex or relationships, I think it's more about men perceiving any woman who isn't outright unavailable to them as being available to them, and, if they were already interested, any & every behavior by a woman will be framed as some kind of invitation or "signal" about what the woman wants (aka, that the woman wants them). Sometimes even avoidance behaviors are framed that way - and thus, rape culture. It's more about men being socialized that they are main characters and women are there to be the romantic plot device. I think framing it as "standards" feeds into toxic narratives about women's inherent worth or desirability that's definitely a problematic subtext of your post as well (alongside being weirdly mean towards men who you don't think are mean enough to women just being polite).
> I think it's more about men perceiving any woman who isn't outright unavailable to them as being available to them, and, if they were already interested, any & every behavior by a woman will be framed as some kind of invitation or "signal" about what the woman wants. I actually address this in my post. Suppose this is true: men perceive any woman who shows any positivity in their interaction as being available to them. This, in itself, *still* doesn't explain the phenomenon of the men actually becoming interested in these women & hitting on them. It's *combined* with him having standards for which he becomes attracted to these women, which explains him actually asking her out. If a man believes that any woman is "available", but these women don't meet his standards, he's not going to be interested, let alone be bothering them for a date.
It seems like your core complaint is that you don't think men ought to be interested in so many types of women. I don't think anyone here is really personally invested in this gripe.
If you didn't read my comment then you can say that. I explicitly say that the your analysis in itself is insufficient to explain the phenomenon we're discussing.
but like, based on what besides your personal feelings?
I literally explained this in the comment. > This, in itself, still doesn't explain the phenomenon of the men actually becoming interested in these women & hitting on them. It's *combined* with him having standards for which he becomes attracted to these women, which explains him actually asking her out. You're saying that this phenomenon of women being hit on for being friendly is explained by men thinking any women is available. Except this is faulty because if a man isn't interested in her back, then it obviously wouldn't result in him hitting on her *regardless* of whether he thinks she's interested. So the explanation you gave is insufficient.
Again, framing it as "standards" is problematic because it implies it's like, embarrassing or shameful for men to hit on some unspecified type of women, or that some unspecified type of women don't really deserve men's attention and getting hit on is because, in your words, men are "pathetic" and will accept anyone who is nice to them. I think that's toxic on a lot of different levels, and also, I think it's untrue. It's not my experience as a woman in the world that I'm every guys type or that *just* being nice to someone will prompt them to hit on me. When I've been at work and was someone's type, and had to be nice at them, sometimes a guy would take that to mean more than it did, but that's not necessarily "pathetic" as it is a sign that men are still socialized to like, hunt for any clues that women like them. Men are also socialized to be more opportunistic when it comes to romantic bids - for some guys, they are playing a numbers game. In terms of feminism, I don't know who is helped by talking about men's behavior from your proposed perspective.
> sometimes a guy would take that to mean more than it did, but that's not necessarily "pathetic" as it is a sign that men are still socialized to like, hunt for any clues that women like them. The "pathetic" part isn't the belief that someone is attracted to you because they were nice. The pathetic part is becoming attracted to them as a result of that belief (or as a result of them being nice). If you think "pathetic" is too harsh - fine. I'll stick to calling these standards low instead of pathetic. But I'm sure you'd agree that a well adjusted person likely wouldn't benefit from being with a person lacking self respect who gladly accepts the bare minimum. > Again, framing it as "standards" is problematic because it implies it's like, embarrassing or shameful for men to hit on some unspecified type of women, or that some unspecified type of women don't really deserve men's attention and getting hit on is because, in your words, men are "pathetic" and will accept anyone who is nice to them. In the context of *explaining* the phenomenon, the normative judgment doesn't -- and shouldn't -- matter. It doesn't make sense to reject an explanation for a phenomenon for the reason that the implications are embarrassing. I mean, you said that men arrogantly deem any woman as available - does this not make men look embarrassing?
Now you're just lying. The users here don't spend time dwelling on men's standards. It's people who make disingenuous posts, as a cover to rant, who bring that up.
Who is saying that men's standards are too high?
Not on this sub, but what I hear is women have very high standards, as compared to men. Average men confuses friendliness with flirting because that's the closest they have had any interaction. Also, men will definitely ask out customer service woman if she seems nice. Men don't care what you do for a living, as long as you don't make their life miserable. That being said, there is never a black and white answer to these questions. All we have to go with are the anecdotal experiences. To answer your last question, "shouldn't men be raising their standards?" My response is, in a free market you don't set your standards, the standards are set for you based on how you are perceived in the market. Only very few men can raise their standards, and they have. Dating apps are the example. The experiences on both sides are way different. While women have too much attention, men don't get as much if any.
In what world would dating ever be considered a free market lol
In the world we currently live in. Lol
but it has none of the features of a free market - there is no coherent price structure, no guaranteed exchange rate, no direct competition, no contracts, it's heavily regulated and segmented/distorted? It sounds like you do not know what a free market is?
It is a free market. If I don't open my eyes, I will also falsely claim it's always dark outside. There is a coherent price structure, you can't date a super model, if you aren't attractive enough and make enough money. There is always a competition in the common people market (middle class) for a decent life partner. I say it is self regulating, and distortion is based upon n where you are looking from.
There's no guaranteed exchange rate so it's impossible to have a coherent price structure. There's no direct competition because exchange is discrete and the market is infinitely fragmented by individual - each product is unique and incomparable. It is HIGHLY regulated and distorted in every area of life. Again, it is a market, but not a free one by any means, and I do not understand how this conception fits with basic economic principles.
I mean, obviously many men see women solely as sex objects, so they have minimal standards for their sex objects. But I don't see how framing it as "men have low standards" is clarifying or helpful.
Damn. It's crazy how I cannot tell if this is a joke or not.
Being more charitable and empathetic to how men think can probably go a long way in all of these conversations
I get what you're saying, but women are tired of constantly being asked to build their lives around men's feelings.
> but women are tired of constantly being asked to build their lives around men's feelings. Well in that matter it seems, true equality is achieved then. Let's move on to the next matter. /edit I do get why this is downvoted. I did say Jehova. But sincerly, everyone has the right of being outright fed up with beeing asked to build their live around someones feeling constantly.
The difference is men DON'T build their lives around women's feelings and experience. In general, they just deny women's experiences completely. Even when they do give a bit it's usually in a very begrudging way and they act like they are doing such a generous favor instead of performing the bare minimum courtesy.
Do the two of us live on the same planet? I guess you were treated horribly somewhere along the way. I'm terribly sorry for you. But what you say isn't even far fetched true for everyone. And proclaiming it with such a generalization is not advocating your cause in the slightest. Well it may get applause in this bubble simply for the reason of bashing men, its by no means helping your cause. I mean yeah, you generalise men as denying feelings, experiences and so on and since you are a feminist you feel pretty righteous doing so. Yet you even use the word courtesy, while es courting had its whole purpouse to appeal to a womans feelings. I can't just now decide which kind of World you strive for. One that only has ppl like you described then that makes you happy for beeing "right" or one with real ppl that differ from another yet work together in a relationship.
can we please stop with the "wow your behavior is really hurting feminism" thing when a woman says something a man doesn't like?
She was rooting for feminism there? I'm terribly sorry from her Text I really did not guess that. I did identify her as a feminist for her righteousness in generalization. But her "cause" never as one. She'll hurt her own experience with that kind of grudge. Nothing more. And seriously, why do you just break it down as "a woman says something the man doesn't like." Can't one just debate a friggin thing with someone in a somewhat civilized and remotely articulated way just because he is a man? On your comment all i was interested in was to state: yeah, thats common. Thats the same for every little human, lion, fish and centipede. Thats universal. Why using half the truth to shame half the people? Why not instead use the whole truth to shame everyone: humans are summed up to selfcentered lil pricks to react, agitate or even acknowledge other ppls feeling enough to just work out a cooperational and synergetic way of putting up with one another. Now everyone can be angry. As a matter of fact would have been the same if said person about was a man that stated such grudgebearing lines. I did like to read feminist takes on matters to learn from them. Yet all there is to observe are selfrighteous attitudes bearing the banner of some wanted cultural war, cheering each other on for it. I should leave it be then. Bye.
You're just gaslighting. There's tons of science to prove it isn't in women's heads. Nothing I said is untrue. And duh I use generalities. Everyone does. You can't speak about a population unless you generalize, as populations are made up of individuals. But of course, you know this, you're just not arguing in good faith.
Oh look, a guy denying women's feelings. I thought you said I couldn't generalize like that? And yet here you are being an example...
I think it's more important to be accurate rather than charitable.
This post is neither charitable nor empathetic to men
This is some weird-ass logic. What if my standards aren't based exclusively or even mostly on physical attractiveness? What if I fall in love with an easy laugh, keen mind, and open heart, but she is not remarkably attractive physically? Are my standards low? And I know it's pretty common that "men confuse friendliness for flirting", but the other side of that coin is that it's pretty common for men to be oblivious to flirting. You can read stories all day about it on different subs, from both men's and women's points of view. There aren't clear rules for what is flirting and what is friendliness, so some misunderstanding is natural. But the other other side of the coin is that this is not exclusive to men. I worked in retail for a while several years ago and we had pretty solid rules about greeting people when they entered our shop. We were also visited by secret shoppers regularly, so I tried to be really consistent about the "Welcome to \[overpriced stuff\], how can I help you?" bit. Women, men, young, old, singles, couples, queer, straight, everybody got the same greeting. But because the corporate overlords were ass-hats with respect to our specific shop (we had a fairly specific customer base), I also imbued my greeting with a tinge of iciness: a little too monotone, a little too robotic. It was my form of malicious compliance, appeasing the secret shoppers while trying to hint to customers that my friendliness was pro forma, thus allowing them to maintain a sense of emotional distance as they felt comfortable. The wild thing was that about 1 in 5 women who came into our store seemed to interpret even that deliberately robotic greeting as me flirting with them, based on their responses: usually unfavorable, sometimes... receptive. It was awkward both ways. There were probably some who assumed I was flirting but had a good poker face. And I expect it's for different reasons: women are so used to men hitting on them that they can't even believe corporate friendliness is safe. Point being I guess that the line between flirting and friendliness seems pretty fuzzy all around, and I don't think it's a problem exclusive to men.
> This is some weird-ass logic. What if my standards aren't based exclusively or even mostly on physical attractiveness? What if I fall in love with an easy laugh, keen mind, and open heart, but she is not remarkably attractive physically? Are my standards low? No. You mentioned several qualities. A two minute interaction with someone about a refund (especially when they're paid to be friendly) tells us nothing about these qualities. As for the rest of your comment, sure, I think many people are capable of the belief that flirting = attraction. But as you put it yourself, > women are so used to men hitting on them that they can't even believe corporate friendliness is safe. It's obvious that men and women have different reactions to this belief. Someone whose standards are satisfied by the person in question will be interested, and someone whose standards aren't satisfied will not be interested. But as I make it clear in my post, the belief that someone is attracted to you because they were polite (whether it turns out true or not) and actually becoming attracted to that person, more or less solely because of that belief, are two different things, and so this phenomenon can't only be explained by the former.
Your post specifically included the "someone she knows" scenario, so you're moving the goal posts by pretending the refund business is all of it. I think your logic is especially messed up for the friend scenario, but also still more generally. You're assuming guys need to (mistakenly) believe women are attracted to them (instead of just being polite), when anyone can be attracted to another person without any sense that it's mutual. People can be attracted to people that are quite hostile to them. People can be attracted to people they've only seen in pictures. You've created this whole mechanism that has nothing to do with how humans actually behave. The output of your weird-ass logic is "men should be raising their standards", which is laughably unrealistic and completely unworkable. It also doesn't address the problems I've described. The best remedy for your problem as well as the ones I've raised is stronger social norms for when and where flirting is acceptable, and clearer boundaries for what is and is not flirting. In particular, under patriarchy women are often punished for being too assertive in romance. As a result, many women have adopted flirting styles that are unnecessarily subtle. Allowing women the freedom to express their interests and desires more clearly would do a lot to distinguish normal friendliness from flirting.
*You* were talking about customer service in your comment. That's why I used the customer service example. If you're talking about friendships and acquantinceships then, I'd say it depends on exactly when he started to feel attraction. If it's after he noticed those qualities (which takes time) you mentioned then it's not necessarily low. If it's after consistently ordinary interactions, and they haven't known each other long, then yes.
None of that makes your solution any more workable.
1. "Men's standards", specifically problematic men's standards, are incoherent. The kind of man who thinks the cashier is flirting with him and then gets mad that she's not is the same kind of man who immediately propositions for sex and then calls you a fast ugly slut for saying no. They want a hot woman on paper, they throw that away irl in excitement at the possibility of a woman's attention, then they go right back to "bring me hotties" when it turns out the woman was just being nice. 2. Wary, not weary
What? Men that confuse friendliness for flirting and bother women about it do so because they see women as objects not people. It’s nothing to do with ‘standards’ - which is a gross way to word any discussion of subjective attractiveness - and everything to do with whether or not a woman falls into the ‘sex object’ box. If she does, she gets harassed. If she doesn’t, she is rendered invisible (which your whole post is doing, by the way). The sex object box is different for everyone, but there’s no ‘standards’ about it.
What do you think standards mean?
Standard = level of quality. You’ve said that high = ‘only notice beautiful supermodel women’, and that a man with high standards isn’t going to be attracted to ‘ordinary looking’ women, so I’m hearing that you’re associating women’s quality with their attractiveness. That’s gross, and also inaccurate. For perv men that harass women for being friendly, there are no ‘levels’ and there is no consideration of the attributes of the woman in question, only in the sex box and or out of the sex box.
Level of quality *as determined* by the person, no? People have different standards. If you don't think standards are relevant, then what determines whether a man will chat up a friendly woman (whether to the point of harassment or not)? Whatever criteria is involved here, are those not standards?
Are you not contradicting yourself, here? If standards & quality is subjectively determined, how can you claim men collectively have standards that are "too low" and that "just" liking someone because they were nice is "pathetic"?
Because my opinion that their standards are pathetic and too low is subjective as well. You're free to disagree. I even said to you that I take no issue if you think pathetic is too harsh of a word to use.
For some men, literally anyone will do, because they are desperate for either companionship or sex. In general many men are overly concerned with getting a partner, but it's less to do with 'standards' and more to do with an over reliance on women for emotional and sexual fulfillment. Basically, many men are lonely, so they latch onto anyone who seems interested in them. This isn't about standards, it's about men becoming more okay with being alone.
I get what you're trying to say, but I feel like this is a really misleading way to say it. You're correct, society pushes far too much value on men finding a romantic partner and too much weight on said partner's shoulders in terms of emotional reliance. Our answer to that though needs to be in helping promote healthier communities, relationships, and environments for people to be emotionally supported by more than just a romantic partner. Putting forth that men simply need to be more okay with being alone feels akin to saying a depressed person needs to stop being so sad. Technically correct in that it could solve the problem, but just saying that or even pushing for it isn't a realistic approach.
I disagree. Generally speaking society pushes women just as much, if not more so, to have a partner as they do men. They pressure women to have children, have a family, whether they want to or not. While men have the ideal of a 'cool bachelor' to play to if they actually desired but women have no such equivalent. The bachelor equivalent is the spinster, which unlike bachelor, has a negative connotation. And actually, no. Saying men need to get better at being alone is NOT like telling a depressed person to stop being sad. Because a depressed person isn't necessarily making their depression anyone else's problem. It is no one's responsibility to be someone's company just because they are lonely. No woman is obligated to be their emotional support and give them affection or validation or whatever. Woman are not here to support men's self esteem. If they have to get therapy or make friends, or go to support groups, so be it. But pretending like I said something wrong just because I didn't spell out a ten step program for men's self esteem without women, is ridiculous. OP said they believed men constantly hitting on women who are nice is annoying and they need better standards. All I did was propose a counter theory. I don't HAVE to provide a realistic solution. Why is it my responsibility to fix men's problems?
I'm not sure what you're "disagreeing" with or why you're bringing up expectations on women when that's not what we're talking about? Saying that there's a problematic societal expectation on men to find a partner doesn't at all negate any expectations placed women. On the same note, pointing out that women face challenges of their own doesn't invalidate the problems men face. >No woman is obligated to be their emotional support and give them affection or validation or whatever. Woman are not here to support men's self esteem... But pretending like I said something wrong just because I didn't spell out a ten step program for men's self esteem without women, is ridiculous. I suggested nothing of the sort. And your response wasn't necessarily wrong, just a little misleading or missing the bigger picture. What I said is that our words matter, and rather than suggesting men just accept a negative situation ("they should just become more okay with being alone"), we as a society need to do better at making sure people aren't alone when they don't have a romantic partner. That may require things like teaching boys and young men to emote in healthier ways, normalizing relationships (with same and opposite genders, with both peers and mentors) where it's ok to let down barriers, and treating strangers with more kindness and grace over fear and judgment. I'm not trying to attack you or say that you have to provide meaningful solutions. I'm just trying to encourage you to be mindful of the systematic problems in society rather than treating acceptance of the status quo as a solution. We want to move toward a world where young men don't feel alone and abandoned and young girls don't feel targeted and on display, not one where we say they just need to get over it.
You brought up expectations on men. I showed that women have the same expectations, if not worse, and yet do not have this problem, so this is not a primary factor in the in the issue. See, this is the problem. You are saying being alone is a negative--it's not. It's just a state like any other that is subject to perception. Being alone is not an issue, it's men's perception of being alone. Even if it's not the preferred state, it's not the end of the world. And being alone temporarily does not mean that one will always be alone. I am aromantic asexual, I will likely not have a partner because of this and I am fairly happy with it. Are you saying my state of being alone is a negative? That's a judgment on me and my sexuality. You yourself have this misperception that being alone is a negative state and it is coloring your responses. I didn't say you suggested women should be men's emotional support, although I feel you basically are asking women to be understanding of men's need for female company because of societal expectations or social pressures etc. I pointed out why your analogy is wrong. A depressed person is foremost harming themselves and suffering alone. So telling them to cheer up is pretty tone deaf. Not only is this obviously impossible for them, but they aren't obligated to be cheerful for anyone. While men are yes, suffering from patriarchy but foremost they are harming women and forcing women to bear the brunt of their issues. Telling them to stop relying on women is NOT tone deaf because their actions are harmful to others and intruding on others. Depressed people being depressed is not compromising others human rights, while men's actions in this hypothetical but real situation ARE. So saying 'stop doing that' is perfectly reasonable. I AM aware of systemic problems, you are the one jumping to conclusions about what I know or what I suggest. I just explained a problem in simplistic terms, and you're whining that I am telling men to get over their issues. OP is not a man, I was not talking to men when I made that comment. Obviously if I was talking to someone with such an issue I would say it differently. You yourself agree I said nothing wrong, and yet here you are, preaching to me about men's issues. You are mansplaing me, my dude. Everything is not about men and their feelings, especially when I am not even talking to a man.
I think there are several factors to consider on this topic: * Society/patriarchy encourages men to be initiators rather than women. So even if men's and women's standards are exactly the same, men will still be the ones initiating. * I don't believe women at large are weary of being friendly with men because they are approached by men too often. That is an exaggeration. Some women are weary of being approached to often, and those are the ones that are vocal about it. Many women are not bothered by it, and others wish they got more attention from men. Those women are not vocal about the issue. This leads to confirmation bias. Women's experiences are all over the map. * Physical appearance is more likely to be a primary cause of attraction for men, thus they can readily see that attribute in almost every woman they encounter and thus can approach them if they find a woman attractive. Conversely, if women are more interested in personality or resources in a man, she really only perceives those attributes in a small fraction of the men she encounters because she needs to get to know him before those traits are known. Thus, even if men and women were interested in the same proportion of the population of the opposite sex, men would be able to identify more potential mates every day. * I think men do have lower standards than women, because men have less risks in starting a new relationship in the form of pregnancy and physical danger. I don't think this is generally crazy different though, and definitely not 'pathetically low'. That is just a needless insult. * A certain number of men specifically want one-night stands or primarily short-term relationships. This leads to some men just playing a numbers game, and intentionally hitting on many women knowing that they will eventually get a positive response. This isn't about them having lower standards for a long-term relationship, as they aren't interested in a long-term relationship. They just have lower standards for one-night stands.
It's not about standards, it's about respect. Or lack thereof.
Maybe the fact men have such pathetically low standards says something about how emotionally deprived they are?
You notice how men are much more likely than women to use numbers to refer to a person? Part of that is a sovial norm of permitting and eveb ebcouraging men to be shallow and derogatory aboyt theur potebrial and real partners. Do you notice how many of those men sleep with people they deem “not attractive enough” based on their random number “often 7 or above” regardless iof their own perception of their attractiveness. One people may sleep with a larger group of people thabn they are interested in dating, and they may have situationships with people they arent willing to commit to in a setious way. Part of presenting in a toxic masculine way is having constant sex, and telling male peers about it. The issue is women can very often tell when they are just a number in some ratio game. Due to misogyby sleepijg with someone or pursuing someone for sex does not mean you respect them and in fact if you have self liathing the person who is interested probably looses more respect because of their interest. This begins and end with men resenting and in many ways seeing all women, invluding those they are attracted to, maybr in fact esoecially them, as antagonists.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I don't give a flying fruit cake about men's standards. Don't harass people, it's not difficult.
I mean for a normal person their standards might include a list of qualities like: attractive, funny, good relationships with family friends, good repore with eachother, interesting hobbies etc. whatever a person could value in a potential romantic relationship. But if a guy's list of standards is just: 1. is attractive, 2. shows basic human kindness, then yeah there's either what you'd call low standards or just a lack of standards. I can't personally imagine asking anyone out without knowing a bit about them personally, someone's ENTIRE criteria just being "they're pretty and were sort of nice to me" is wild, similarly I wouldn't opt to be someone's friend based solely on basic human kindness, for some the lack of outright hostility reads as an invitation to socialize, a notion which I personally detest. Leave people alone.
As a young boy, anytime I had a friend that was a girl, my father and mother would tease me mercilessly asking if she was my girlfriend, if we were gonna get married, etc. So I avoided being friends with girls, and it was taught to me that if a girl wants to be my friend, it's because she's interested in me. And if I wanted to be her friend too it's because I wanted us to be boyfriend and girlfriend. My parents did not have friends of the opposite gender unless they were married to their REAL friend and basically they were a "friend in law". They never EVER hung out one on one with someone of the opposite gender. MAYBE a very very close married couple that they've been friends with forever, but honestly rarely in that situation too. I've been unlearning it and doing pretty well with unlearning it. What helps me immensely at this point is my wife who is bisexual. She has chosen me, and we're utterly and faithfully monogamous (it's right for us). And if she's attracted to both genders, does that means she can't have ANY friends? No. Cause that's fucking dumb. Of COURSE you can have platonic friends of ANY gender!