Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except they aren't. Just a small percentage, exaggerated by media coverage. The ringleader, Elliot Rodger, isn't even respected by most people who say "Go ER" and post pictures of him. He was seriously mentally ill and didn't just hate women, and arguably his killing spree was more about personal grudges that he portrayed as for the greater good because it puffed him up and he shared his father's fondness for making stories.
Unhappy with women's behavior is probably the strongest accurate indictment someone can make of a man calling himself "incel," and a sizable percentage of the 'normal' male population also shares the feeling. The gist of it: that women's standards have become unreasonable.
Except they aren't. Just a small percentage, exaggerated by media coverage. The ringleader, Elliot Rodger, isn't even respected by most people who say "Go ER" and post pictures of him. He was seriously mentally ill and didn't just hate women, and arguably his killing spree was more about personal grudges that he portrayed as for the greater good because it puffed him up and he shared his father's fondness for making stories.
Unhappy with women's behavior is probably the strongest accurate indictment someone can make of a man calling himself "incel," and a sizable percentage of the 'normal' male population also shares the feeling. The gist of it: that women's standards have become unreasonable.
Unreasonable to whom, though? Why are women not allowed to decide the standards to which they manage their relationships? Why should the needs of men trump her own needs?
There is that possibility, though not all of them are that way. Some of them are independent and can do things on their own and have standards and expectations. I guess it comes down to what a woman would rather have... a bad boy status symbol who is hard to handle, really extroverted, etc. or an overly affectionate, perhaps too affectionate guy that could end up turning off her off from a basic biological perspective but would make a great friend, companion, provider, etc. I suppose most end up with a happy medium, lol.
C'mon, now. Just because women don't want to date Incels doesn't mean we all go after "bad boy" Chads. Give it a rest. It's a false dichotomy. Playing into logical fallacies will get you nowhere.
I have dated a wide variety of men. From dateless, socially awkward, introverted, nerdy, dorky Aspies to charismatic, good-looking, outgoing, confident men. I married the former. I APPROACHED him. I dated countless similar men. Many were introverted, shy, nerdy, geeky, and, most of all, kind, good-hearted, confident in who they are. It may have taken them a while to develop a level of confidence, but they eventually did the necessary introspection to get to that place. These were the DnD, Magic the Gathering, tabletop gaming nerds with a penchant for building computers, MMOs and RPGs, cosplay, alt lifestyle, writing, and academics. But I wouldn't have taken interest in them had they exhibited problematic and unstable behavior. My desire for involvement plummets to zero when it's clear that person isn't in a healthy headspace.
Quote:
Of course not all "nice guys" are nice and not all confident men are asses ... it's mostly a mixture of traits. "Nice guy" is a term insecure men use to try to gain sympathy I'll admit.... and "soul mate" could actually mean "stalker."
There's Nice Guy™ and then there's a nice guy. There's a difference. The former, for me, was easy to spot.
Quote:
I still get the perspective that dating is much easier for women as far as quantity goes... that men are lined up in a queue thanks to social media where they can sample from the buffet, especially in their 20's.
For some women, sure. I won't pretend dating was difficult for me. It wasn't. I had options. I also have a specific type that I desire for a relationship. It's not a Chad. I've never dated a Chad. Scratch that. I very briefly dated a Marine just out of high school. Typical good-looking Marine. Turns out, he was dating a few other girls. No surprise there. He was a star football player in high school. Total jock and "bad boy."
In any case, I found him on AOL, like all of the other men I interacted with online during the late 90s and early 2000s. I was shy and had social anxiety. And I'm an introvert. Chatrooms and other online groups served as safe havens. I was confident in these spaces. It's where I met my high school boyfriend who lived 45 minutes away. I wasn't a Stacey. I wasn't popular. I was quiet and shy. I had a few crushes in high school that never went anywhere.
But online, with all of the other introverts, in chat rooms for nerds and geeks, I felt confident. The advent of dating sites, a natural progression from video dating services of the 80s and 90s, made interacting and meeting people, in the context of dating, more accessible. While you proclaim it a buffet" and an exercise in vanity and shallowness, I regard it as a platform for people of all backgrounds and personalities to explore. For the nerdy, socially awkward, shy girl or guy who avoids parties and clubs and is too nervous or shy to approach people in person. Because dating "in the real world" is an extrovert's haven. Where the confident, charismatic, bubbly, outgoing, social personalities thrive.
That is not me, and I am perfectly fine with that. But I learned to adapt and use the tools available. I realized I clicked best with certain types, and guess what, that type is online, in spades. So when I say I didn't struggle with dating or finding good matches, the platform/medium plays a significant role in that. Aside from relatives and classmates growing up, the people who have left imprints on my life, I met in online spaces, going back to those AOL chatrooms circa '98. I liked being able to GTKY in this context. GTK someone in this manner was more real to me than a dude just walking up to me because he liked the way I looked. That...means nothing to me, and I don't determine interest in someone because they happen to fancy the way I look. Now, if we bond over Buffy, Firefly, classic horror movies of the 80s and 90s, martial arts mobies, sci-fi, authors, music, etc., that had the potential to go somewhere. (late 90s-early 2000s) My high school boyfriend and I chatted via IM for a couple weeks before we met. We were film buffs, especially horror, and played video games, discussed music, etc.
Fast forward to my late 20s and I start dating again, I had a wide range of options, from the good-looking, charismatic, outgoing, confident professionals, to kind of guys that have always been my type. I went on a lot of one-and-done dates. I went out with a socially awkward, shy and introverted virgin expat from Tunisia. He was from a Muslim culture where dating and marriage were arranged and he was pretty oblivious to the whole dating process. He never even kissed a woman. He was sweet and kind and not an Incel. I went out with a number of men who were dateless, shy, socially awkward, average-looking (to most), etc. Several of these dates struggled with the idea of being friend zoned. They were practically convinced they would end up friend zoned and to avoid being rejected, they sabotaged their chances by becoming aloof or pushing me away. Then when I took those signs to heart, I backed off, and then I get accused of friend zoning or thinking something was wrong with them.
This is why being in the right headspace matters. To avoid self-sabotage.
Quote:
Men have to put in all this effort and if they didn't win the genetic lottery or turn out well adjusted they have to struggle to get any affection, much less sex.
Lol. And that effort is...? Because the bulk of the men that blew up my inbox weren't trying that hard to shoot me a few lines. My best matches, yes, they put in the effort to stand out and market their best and unique qualities and characteristics.
The vast majority of men I dated, I reached out to. I put a great deal of effort into "marketing" myself to my intended audience, and yes, it worked. I used a platform that worked in my favor. If I had a better chance of coming across my type in these spaces, then it made sense to focus my attention there than, what, hang out at a bar or club and wait to be approached by a rando dude I didn't know a thing about and wanted nothing to do with. (and I've been approached by "Chads" and not-Chads from my late teens and beyond)
And I'm not the only woman like this. I have several friends who share similar experiences with shyness, introversion, social anxiety, etc., that used the internet to their advantage. And guess what? They dated and married that guy they met in WoW while doing dungeons and raids. Or they met on message boards, or, gasp, dating sites or yahoo personals.
Quote:
(This is not a new phenomenon though... if you look back on our evolutionary history, at best 50% of men passed on their seed, and during some periods it was as low as 15%, when most men were basically slaves from birth) Quantity doesn't necessarily equate to quality
Courtships used to be orchestrated by parents. Men and women didn't need to expend much effort. What kind of wooing is necessary when courtships, as practiced in the past, were arranged and each played their respective roles. In the past, the focus had long been on the suitability of the male suitor. That he came from the right family with the right background. "Good" was a quality wrapped up in religious and cultural customs and tenets. Whether it actually translated to "good," that's a different story.
Quote:
but I see these posts about women wanting "good men" and I see all these good men out there, they just aren't super confident or exciting, they don't come on boldly and chase hard... I think what some of these women (not all of them) really mean is that the types of men they find attractive don't end up being "good men" to them.. typically rough, bad boy types, the type their genetics dictate they desire.
But my idea of "good" is not your idea of "good" and so on and so forth. How we define those qualities and traits are going to differ. A lot.
And I don't know, except that Marine I briefly dated at 17, I didn't pursue bad boys. So...? This applies to a lot of women. I didn't need a guy to come on boldly. I also didn't need to be chased. Both methods for picking up women come off phony and disingenuous.
The other Marines I went out with were not rough bad boy types. The one I married -- the socially awkward, shy, introverted Aspie, was a band geek, who was an instrumentalist in a Marine Corps field band. Try that for "bad boy."
Definitely not the popular sports jock, gung-ho aviation ordnance Marine like my father. Apart from the Marine I briefly dated at 17, I never went beyond one date with anyone resembling my father. Not.my.type.
Quote:
My main problem has always been lack of playfulness and lack of the ability to be witty/funny which is perhaps the most important trait a man could have especially in the initial attraction "crush" phase of the relationship.
Can you expound on this? What does this look like to you? Playfulness and the ability to be witty and funny.
Quote:
It's just the way I got wired thanks to upbringing. I'm not good at "small talk" and don't have a lot of stories to tell that make people laugh. I didn't grow up wired to be interested in that, and only as I've gotten older do I see the importance of all facets of one's personality including playful banter. I know to change it would require moving to a more populated area, going into bars, and practice practice practice over and over. Force myself to be someone I turned out not to be... do I want to do this? I'd rather find a cuddly "deep" introvert who can look past my flaws. I'll get there.
Dude, I loathe small talk, which is partly why I don't like cold approaches. Just thinking I'm nice-looking (because it is based on looks) enough to approach will not make me interested, and small talk didn't do it for me, either. You lost me at bars. Again, you're still working under the assumption that one person's playfulness should be your playfulness. You can develop your own sense of playfulness that is unique to your personality. A lot of that has to do with being comfortable with the person you're interacting with.
And yet again, Incels and their ilk throw a conniption when they feel ignored or upset that others don't see them, but these same men continue doing the same things that don't work, or don't yield the best results for what they want. What makes you think you'll find better results at bars?
My now-husband is a shy, extremely affectionate, patient, loving, warm, playful, nerdy, witty, endearing, geeky introvert, and guess what? He did not go to bars or clubs (he doesn't drink). He found his best matches online. And I contacted him.
Unhappy with women's behavior is probably the strongest accurate indictment someone can make of a man calling himself "incel," and a sizable percentage of the 'normal' male population also shares the feeling. The gist of it: that women's standards have become unreasonable.
Women’s standards probably seem a lot more reasonable to women, especially now that women have the option to have them and to decide what they are. Most men will be fine—you need to give men more credit.
Unreasonable to whom, though? Why are women not allowed to decide the standards to which they manage their relationships? Why should the needs of men trump her own needs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusano
Women’s standards probably seem a lot more reasonable to women, especially now that women have the option to have them and to decide what they are. Most men will be fine—you need to give men more credit.
Unreasonable to whom, though? Why are women not allowed to decide the standards to which they manage their relationships? Why should the needs of men trump her own needs?
They shouldn't. Men's expectations should be meetable by most women and women's by most men (for heterosexuals). (I'm talking drawing enough arrows between individuals, not that everyone will match with nearly everyone else.) The mismatch is the main cause of the misery. But I don't think men's minimum standards have increased, while women's have, with seeming increased resentment of any expectations on them by men. And if standards are met and then in relationships people care far more about their own wants and needs....
They shouldn't. Men's expectations should be meetable by most women and women's by most men (for heterosexuals). (I'm talking drawing enough arrows between individuals, not that everyone will match with nearly everyone else.) The mismatch is the main cause of the misery. But I don't think men's minimum standards have increased, while women's have, with seeming increased resentment of any expectations on them by men. And if standards are met and then in relationships people care far more about their own wants and needs....
What are you basing this on? I dont think women’s standards have changed outside of the fact we no longer need to marry men we don’t live or even like just because society or financial reality of the times dictated we get married. If marrying or partnering only men we are attracted to and compatible with is too high a standard for today’s men, I don’t know what to tell you.
What are you basing this on? I dont think women’s standards have changed outside of the fact we no longer need to marry men we don’t live or even like just because society or financial reality of the times dictated we get married. If marrying or partnering only men we are attracted to and compatible with is too high a standard for today’s men, I don’t know what to tell you.
That seems to be part of the issue--if a woman decides that based on the men that she's meeting that she'd rather be single or explore her options, her opting out is somehow *unfair* to the men she's not dating.
They shouldn't. Men's expectations should be meetable by most women and women's by most men (for heterosexuals).
No, they shouldn't. You don't get to determine that. People, women and men, are allowed to have preferences and criteria of their own choosing. They're not obligated to like or settle for mediocrity or "okay enough" simply for Incel men to avoid loneliness.
If your idea of meetable expectations is "attractive enough" and "likable enough" because it's a surefire way for would-be Incels to avoid Inceldom, it reeks of next-level misogyny and entitlement. It boils down to placing expectations on others so Incels don't have to be alone, ignored, unhappy, unfulfilled.
Talk about an extremely low bar. My purpose in life isn't to fill anyone's void. It isn't to fix anyone or be the unwilling target of some guy's scorn, hate, mistreatment, abuse, etc., because he has hurt feels.
I have criteria and preferences and for a damn good reason. I know what I like and the kind of relationship dynamic I like. Acquiring just any man, because hey, he has the right parts, he'll do, has never been my M.O., because, for some of us, connection, chemistry, and compatibility are deeper than simply coupling up for the sake of avoiding loneliness.
Quote:
(I'm talking drawing enough arrows between individuals, not that everyone will match with nearly everyone else.) The mismatch is the main cause of the misery. But I don't think men's minimum standards have increased,
You can't speak for all men. In the past, the minimum standard was "marry a good Christian girl" or marry the young teenage girl from a nice Christian family. Young, fertile and the ability to pop out kids to work on the farm or work in the ministry. "Back then" the idea of chemistry and compatibility was pretty nonexistent. "Women" didn't even have to like their husbands. Their duty was to bear and raise children. Screw liking and loving your spouse. And then "women," as recent as several decades, compared to millennia (for men, who were in control -- thanks Paul/Saul), were able to figure out what they wanted, perhaps through trial and error, while working toward self-sufficiency and independence. "Suddenly," women were in more control of what they want, as opposed to what their parents and society dictated. I don't concern myself with what other women want, but I will champion their right to choose their criteria and preferences. If that happens to be a "godly man" preacher's son, a man of the ministry, a fighter for the great commission. Sobeit. That's their choice. It isn't mine. BTDT. I had a lot of preferences not met by most men.
Quote:
while women's have,
Yes. How very non-1950s of them. Having preferences that don't favor most men's interests. How dare they.
Quote:
with seeming increased resentment of any expectations on them by men.
Uh, yeah, because "women" do not owe "men" obedience, sex or their uterus. "Men" sure as hell don't get to determine what I like or don't like and who I will or won't date. This isn't the 1950s. Thank f*cking jibbers crabst.
Quote:
And if standards are met and then in relationships people care far more about their own wants and needs....
By "people," you mean "women." lol In healthy partnerships, not out of obedience, obligation and arrangement, the wants and needs of both are nurtured. There is compassion, empathy, warmth, sincere love, connection, chemistry, patience, respect, consideration, etc.
You talk of all this lack of empathy people have for Incels and how "people" should see things from their perspective. It's not the old days. "Women" don't want "just a guy" anymore. (who said women back then "wanted" the men they had? They were often pressured and obligated to partner up with the men they married. That's not real love. That's obligation.)
Your warped version of "empathy" translates to "women just need to not have standards at all so us Incels don't remain dateless and lonely."
If you want a Proverbs 31 woman, seek out the circles where you're likely to find them. Bam! Problem solved. 1950s again.
I hope you haven't actually used your psychology degree to treat patients, because the lack of empathy is a disqualifier.
I have no degree in psychology, mine is in engineering. However two of my BFFs are seasoned clinical psychologists, and I often enjoy dicussing psychology with both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusano
Women’s standards probably seem a lot more reasonable to women, especially now that women have the option to have them and to decide what they are. Most men will be fine—you need to give men more credit.
And like all people, women get to choose what standards they follow. All individuals get to do that as long as they don't coerce others into unwillingly going along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
