The value of men

Post Reply New Topic

Yes we agree on that. They have all the freedom to keep their sexist ideas if they want.

I have the freedom to disagree with their ideas.

I've always used Ralph Waldo Emerson as a sort of "role model."

I believe, partially, in his theories of transcendence--that, in essence, Nature is God.

Incorrect. I'm not trying to do anything to you. I'm just clarifying my posts. If you're pissed off, that's due to your thoughts and your emotional reaction to them - which has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

You clearly don't comprehend the definition of sexist. Someone ruling potential partners out because they don't fit their criteria for attraction is selection, not sexist. If it were sexist, they'd rule out all men for being the male sex. Period.

Well no. I was getting pissed because you keep saying that these women are entitled to have their standars, which I never objected to. I was only talking about this "real man" thing, and you didn't say a word about it. I felt like I was talking about apples and you respond about oranges.

And again here you talk about "ruling out potential partners who don't fit their criteria", which I never complained about. Am I writing in English or Chinese? I never complained about women who rule out potential partners, why do you keep talking about that? You make me feel like hitting the wall with my head! You completely avoid responding to the points I make in my posts, and you say that I call sexist women who rule out potential partner, which is a lie. Please stop that.
This "real man" thing imho IS sexist not only because it is related to gender, but because it promotes a view of the masculine gender that is personal and often stereotypized. Being a man has NOTHING to do with the fact that a girl likes you and chooses you as her partner. You are a man independently from it, the expression is stupid and makes no sense. And I know that all this thing is not a big deal at all and when a girl says "he's a real man" she simply means that he matches her standards of masculinity, but we can still say that such expression has some shades of sexism.
And of course, same could be said about an expression like "she's a real woman", it makes no sense.
Maybe for some reason you didn't understand my previous posts, hopefully I explained myself better now.

Bolded the part where you've answered your own question. Replace the phrase "real man," with "man who meets my criteria for attraction," and there you have it. There's nothing sexist about being attracted to specific qualities in a partner. It just is what it is. It is what it is for me, and for women, and for others. I automatically rule out guys who don't fit the aesthetic, intellectual, or personality traits I'm attracted to. Your argument about the phrase "real man," is silly and pointless since you already realize that it simply means the criteria they're attracted to in a mate.

Further, those traits have been "masculine, real man," traits for thousands of years. It's nothing new. Women are attracted to alpha males - the bigger, better, stronger, faster, smarter, healthier, wealthier, taller, protector, provider types - in general. It is what it is and is never going to change. Accept the situation for what it is and move on. If you're not one of those guys and want to meet more of those criteria, then bust your ass to become as much of a "real man," as you possibly can. Otherwise, just accept that that's typically what women want and that's that. If you're not it, you're not it - and the woman for you is the one that's attracted to you. Period. You can never ever EVER change this about women in general.. but you CAN change yourself to better meet their criteria. I know this to be fact because I've done it myself. 3-4 years ago I was in terrible shape all around, health/wealth etc. Today I'm in great physical & mental shape, and I have some money, and I'm going nowhere but upwards/onwards/forwards. If I were straight I could have my pick of women. But, I'm gay, and very very picky.. so, waiting for the right boy.

Well, my take is that independent, financially stable women usually want to date independent (read: don't live with mommy or daddy if you are 21 or older) and financially stable (not rich, stable) -- and rule out men who do not meet those very reasonable, very basic criteria.

If a guy happens to be really hot, rich and socially successful on top of the reasonable criteria? Bonus! Yippee! Men don't get ruled out for not having those traits!

Haha, so I was right! For all our conversation I felt like you were implying that I am bashing these women because they reject me or something and I wished I were a different person than I am! I didn't want to say anything because I thought I was being paranoid. Why on hell are you saying these things about me? I was not even talking about "criteria for attraction" and I agreed with you that everyone is entitled to their standards! Why do you just ignore all my points and accuse me of being one of the delusional misogynists who creep this forum? I find it rather offensive, I never had touble defending women when I thought they were right, and even more often I had harsh discussions with these nice guys. If you want to hate on me because I don't have a girlfriend feel free to do it, but let's not pretend to have an actual conversation because it only annoys me.
And again I'll try to explain my argumentations to you with common examples.
Some guys say "real women swallow". What does it even mean, you're not a woman if you don't swallow? I'm pretty sure some gay males swallow too, what does it mean? It is stupid and sexist.
Often to persuade someone to be courageous they tell him "be a man!". Same about the expression "have the balls to do something". What does it mean? Are you a woman if you are not courageous? It's a sexual stereotype.
To sum it up, I am not saying that this expression is such a big deal to worry about, I just say that it has a sexist nature, which is correct. Btw I don't recall having ever said stuff like "she's a real woman".

Man, I'm trying to say that not every woman is like that.
You don't know. You've never had a girlfriend.

I had one girlfriend, and she was not like that.
I had a problem back then, I was not able to take care of myself financially if we were to live alone together, and she did not want to have to support me. She didn't want for me to be her "daddy," she wanted me to be her equal, and I was not, I was like a kid.

I'm trying to explain to you that not ALL women are greedy for men with money, strength, social status and whatever.
Sure, there may be a lot of women like that, but you don't know the statistics.

You don't know, I don't know, nobody really knows. Nobody knows absolutely everybody 100%.
It's not like the lottery, it's not one in a billion, it doesn't work that way.
You don't know what the chances are.

Don't kill yourself over this. Just take some anxiolytics or something and be out there doing stuff, I don't know.
That's what I'm gonna try to do, and I have no clue what I'm doing whatsoever, but if I just feel relaxed out there, women seem to notice me way more.

I drank some alcohol a few days ago, and THREE very attractive women smiled at me at a grocery store within the time frame of TEN minutes. It had to be my body language, because I was relaxed, and they could tell I was relaxed. I guess I looked like I was feeling confident.

Try drinking Chamomile tea, I drink two cups of that and I'm feeling relaxed.
But... it all builds tolerance, so I can't use it all the time, sadly.

Yes, men don't get ruled out for not being really hot, rich and socially successful. They get ruled out for being ugly, poor and socially awkward!

Not always. I fit those criteria and I still don't get much interest from women.

As for being a provider all it gets me is GF complaining that she's unemployed and that she wants a job like mine. She's willing to work but no one is hiring right now.

its against the law to be sexist towards women.

whats reasonable to one isn't reasonable to antoher.
the us thought it reasonable the natives giv up all their land and move away. the natives dind't find that reasonable.

what does stable mean to you? if one makes 20 a week and that pays for all he needs then he is stable.
definding stable as a person making middle class income is not stable. tahts being well off. please stop confusing stable with super high standards. or minminal requirements with high standards. you are not asking for basic stuff.

wish those on the left would stop using the word reasonable. as nothing they say is reasonable to anyone but them.

but see I'm like you were then I don't have a real job. I get ssi and work seasonal as a cashier for min wage. I do provide for myself. she wont' have to provide for me. just means I won't go out all the time, which is find I dont' like going out all the time. prefer to just hang out inside, go on walks o go camping. all free and cost nothing but ar fun and good times.

so its hopeless for me. I won't ever make more then min wage. and that sif I lucky enough to get a job. which women don't consider a real job since its not 20 dollars an hour or more. women everywhere say this, think this. you see them say it here. only men say women won't care.

if you managed to get a decent job good for you. there's hope for you. there isn't any for me. only one way to deal with an unwinnable situation. see it as if you you are about to be overun by isis, if they get you you'll be tortured and beheaded. you have a round left. so you shoot yourself to avoid horrible life and death. its the same with me. though the torture will last 30-40 years as everything good about me slowly dies and i become some resentful monster. or i can die when I'm still me. the choice is clear. all the good things about me are over ruled by the one simple ting. money money money.

its all her fault shes just lazy. wups that only implies to guys in who are in that situation.

But, it's not hopeless. Some women prefer to hang out inside, go on walks, camping and live simple.
It is not every woman in the world saying you need 20 dollars an hour or more.
It would obviously be preferable to many, but not all of them.
You never really know a person, male or female.