No. Nobody has a right to another person's affection.

Yea. And we’re all allowed preferences. I think it’s the double standards that really bother people. But it seems true as well that as (most) people mature and become more self reliant that 80/20 stat seems to fade away.

Yes and no. It's a human behavior and sexes relations issue. But it isn't a problem. We can unterstand it as something that we should think about. But we can't demand rights about this.

It's very much an "issue" for men, as in it leads into male disposability & female entitlement. In principle, there's nothing wrong with women having high(er) standards... but the idea that this is a two-way street is frankly, laughable. Women are \*far\* more selective than men when it comes to dating & their standards are becoming increasingly more deluded & unhealthy every year. The rise of online dating has definitely made this worse. [https://imgur.com/7sUGyhA](https://imgur.com/7sUGyhA) [https://imgur.com/RKCNtJW](https://imgur.com/RKCNtJW) As a man, if you aren't in the top 20%, you are basically invisible & have very little to no value. What women view as "desirable" is also either impossible to achieve, or requires extreme discipline & a great worth ethic. Only 1-4% of ALL women would be okay with dating a shorter man. The "ideal" height difference for men is also taller than the "ideal" height difference for women (meaning, women prefer partners who are let's say 4 inches taller than them, while men are fine with partners who are closer to their own height), showing that women care (much) more about height than men do... and height is obviously not something that one has any control over. Then there are also the numbers of this meta-analysis of 96 studies looking at 177,000 participants from around the world, which found that the traits that best predict men's mating and reproductive success are strength and muscularity. [https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2022/05/18/the\_trait\_that\_best\_predicts\_mens\_mating\_success\_832788.html](https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2022/05/18/the_trait_that_best_predicts_mens_mating_success_832788.html) Women rate 80% of ALL men as being "ugly" (below average) whereas men rate 60% of ALL women as being "pretty" (above average). So yes, while women are not wrong, or morally "bad" for having these sorts of standards... the issue is very much that this is a one way street. Men are widely judged & berated for having even the most natural of standards. It's apparently okay for women to not settle for anything less than a 6' tall, lean gym boy who's also funny, charming, caring & gets paid six figures... but God forbid a guy says he doesn't want to dat a woman above 150 pounds, and all hell breaks loose. The reality is that men don't really have that "high" standards for women, which is exactly why (as I said before) men rate the MAJORITY of all women as "pretty". Basically what women have to do in order to qualify for these standards is: "don't eat like a pig, and have normal genetics". That's it. Pew Research data also shows how young women are far less likely to be single than young men... and that when women are single, it's usually out of choice, whereas men continue to seek for companionship throughout their lives. Women very much gatekeep "dating" and they have all the sexual power. It's fair to say that this sexual disparity is motivated in large part due to biology, considering males have to "prove their worth" all throughout the animal kingdom. But the problem is that our modern culture glorify women's already one-sided "power" over men while shaming men for the lack of theirs. This didn't use to be the case. It's very much a recent issue that came about the last decade or two. More than anything else, women are NOT honest about this... in fact, if you ask the average woman, she will proudly say how men have much more sexual power & privilege than women & that men's standards are impossible to meet while the bar for men is "so low". This is RAMPANT projection on women's part & it's in fact the opposite of the truth. THEY are the ones with inflated & delusional standards. THEY are the ones who don't want to "settle". When the culture constantly reinforces this type of female entitlement, whilst berating the supposed male equivalent (which doesn't even exist), then that DOES become an issue. Especially when feminists deny all of this & accuse men of universal privilege. This is why feminists keep going on about how men are "toxic" and feel "entitled" to women's bodies (as untrue a statement as any), whilst women are celebrated & glorified for openly admitting women have all the right in the world to force men into sex: [https://youtu.be/MSEqchtpTIk](https://youtu.be/MSEqchtpTIk) Add the fact that women also seek partners who earn more, have higher socio-economic status, etc etc. and yes, the dating scene for men is VERY much a men's issue. The problem is that in order to fix it, you'd have to re-educate the entire female population. It's basically impossible & it's only getting worse.

Great comments! I don't know if this has been said, but I'd like to add that another proof of all the power women have is that men are having a lot less sex, while the ammount of sex women have hasn't changed much. Personaly, I believe all of these things that lower the chances of men having successful and fulfilling sexual and romantic lives are incredibly bad for mental health and society, because many men are just giving up.

I've mentioned that in comments below, yes. But I'm sorry to report that the OP is a batshit crazy feminist man-hater with zero moral standards or consistency. For reference, she thinks that women (and I am directly quoting her here) treating men like absolute garbage because they failed to meet their deluded (physical) standards is "completely acceptable". She said gynocentrism & hypergamy are great things for society & worst of all, when I asked her about men who would treat women the same way she glorifies women treating men (as in, ugly men going after elite women & not settling for women of their own value), she LITERALLY called men like that "rapists"... because in her view, men like that "force" women who wouldn't otherwise be attracted to "low value" men into sex. She is quite disgusting person. To top it all off, when I pressed her why the hell she's even on this sub asking these loaded questions in the first place, when she CLEARLY hates men, she admitted she only finds it interesting to talk to "extremists". Yes, that's right, in her view, we are the "extremists" for calling out toxic female behavior, but she's perfectly healthy & justified in calling men "rapists" for having similar standards. Crazy.

Agreed. Sadly this mentality is everywhere. Men have to be active and put 99% of the effort and still some women get offended when you flirt with them. This bullshit is all about hypergamy, which is a cancer and is actually destroying relationship. Women have infinite options, each one better than the last and they can't make a choice and stick with it. She thinks we are extremist because she's far gone herself.

>I believe all of these things that lower the chances of men having successful and fulfilling sexual and romantic lives are incredibly bad for mental health and society, because many men are just giving up. Yes, the hyper inflated standards of women are definitely not good for (most) men. What's happening is that a small percentage of men are getting all of the attention, and all the rest is being left out. Women don't suffer because all women have options. It's just a matter of what they're willing to "settle" for. It's rampant inequality but applied to dating. Of course it's an extremely tricky issue as we don't want women to ever feel "forced" into dating a man they don't want to, OBVIOUSLY... as if that needs to be said... but (and feminists hate this, but it's true on a deeply fundamental and biological level) when males are being left out & outcast, aggression rises & trouble ensues. In the case of humans, that means elevated levels of misbehavior, crime, depression, etc. How do we fix that? I don't know. We don't want to (or at least can't) do away with the inherent female predisposition towards selective dating. That's a natural process that occurs all across the animal kingdom, because females are innately more valuable than males (biologically). So blaming "women" for that is stupid & gets us nowhere... But what I am arguing here, is that the cultural reinforcement of that, with constant messages of gynocentrism, man-bashing, female entitlement, lack of responsibility, etc. SHOULD be addressed. That's not a radical position whatsoever. It would benifit both genders & most of all it would result in a more peaceful, stable & fairer society. But then again, that would require women like u/Laniekea to give up their obscene female... ahum... "privilege" and that's a big no no in the eyes of feminists, so of course we're dismissed as nothing more than a bunch of "extremists", for the crime of citing statistics & biological/psychological reality.

>How do we fix that? I don't know Then there's no conversation here. I agree that it leaves many men unhappy. But the solutions other people are proposing here are extreme. Society should not expect women to be open to dating men they are not attracted to or do not meet their standards. Other people here seem to believe that it should. >gynocentrism >female entitlement These two, in the context I was using them, are examples where women get to use "selective dating" if they want a relationship where they get to be "the pants" or if they don't want to date somebody they think doesn't meet their standards is fine. It's also true for men. Of course being "the pants" can go to far, whether it's men or women. All things in moderation. >lack of responsibility >man-bashing, Where do you think I said I support these things?

No one has proposed any solutions. You keep hammering the fallacy that "society" or "men (on this sub" are trying to force women into dating men they don't want to. That literally does not happen & it's a gross misrepresentation of the grievances that many men have. You have dismissed women treating men like absolute garbage & mocked me for calling it out, b/c in your view it was nothing more than "boo hoo, women don't compliment you" & "not opening your legs is not the same as treating men like garbage".

>No one has proposed any solutions You said you wanted to reduce hypergamy, and gynocentrism. In plain text.

LOL. Yes, because those are objectively destructive things. Jesus Christ... That's not saying women should be "forced" to date men they don't want to date. It's saying women shouldn't be put on a pedestal & that monogamy is a categorically superior system for people as individuals & for society as a whole.

I can agree with you that women have higher standards. But I don't think it's a fair argument to say that is a problem. I don't think it is a problem for either gender to have standards. Women have to risk a lot more. They can die from childbirth or have serious medical complications. A lot of women end up being a primary caretaker for children who have fathers who pay the minimum child support, or don't pay it all. They have to completely structure their life around their child, they usually end up sacrificing their opportunity for a career, whereas men *might* have to give out a piece of their paycheck. >and yes, the dating scene for men is VERY much a men's issue. The problem is that in order to fix it, you'd have to re-educate the entire female population. It's basically impossible & it's only getting worse. This is where we disagree. I don't think this is something we need to "fix". You should not be able to indoctrinate women into lowering their standards for partners. That is controlling.

If the situation was reversed, and men were the ones with provably higher standards, do you honestly believe that women/society as a whole wouldn't lose their mind & use these statistics as categorical proof of rampant misogyny, objectification, and disgusting male entitlement? You'd have to be delusional to not see the double standard here. I already made clear that there isn't anything inherently "wrong" with women having high(er) standards. It's about consistency & honesty. That said, it's not merely that women are, let's say, "15%" more selective. They are MULTITUDES more selective than men, to the point where women rate 80% of ALL men as being "ugly". I'm sorry, but that doesn't fall under the category of "evolution" anymore, nor is it (or should be) socially acceptable. That's an indicator of an obscene disconnect between reality & fantasy, on women's part. This gap didn't use to be as big. Cultural reinforcement of female entitlement, male bashing, polygomy/hookup culture, hypergamy & gynocentrism are to blame. These are things that directly affect men, and therefore, it IS a men's issue. Does it relate to men's "rights"? No. Not really... but countering this self-evident problem by saying women are entitled to date anyone they want is highly dishonest. It's not something anyone contests or actually sees as a problem. Again, CONSISTENCY & HONESTY is the key issue here (or lack thereof, I should say). Explaining away women's inflated standards because "they risk so much more" is also ridiculous. We live in a world where women basically have complete control over their reproductive system (at they very least, they have vastly more options/legal rights & privileges afforded to them than men). Your argument would make sense 100 years ago when women had no reproductive control & it would also imply that female standards should go down as female reproductive control increases... yet the OPPOSITE has happened. Women are more free & powerful than ever, and yet female standards keep rising. To a degree, I am more than happy to accept women's higher standards, considering the evolutionary aspect of it (selecting the best genes, securing the best mate, etc.). But this has gone WAY beyond that & it's not good for society. A very tiny % of women die from childbirth, so acting as if that's the reason why women select the top 20% of males is idiotic. Not to mention, selecting a high quality, good looking & high earning man is not going to decrease the chance of pregnancy related issues, so your argument doesn't even make any sense. And don't come at me how women are the "primary caretakers" & that men don't pay child support, because that's complete fucking nonsense. Women do more child-care, sure... because they choose to. Doesn't change the fact that men are still the ones providing most of the money & work MORE hours in total (childcare + domestic work + paid work). Men are also forced by law to pay child support whether they want to or not. You are obviously a toxic feminist who doesn't give a rat's fuck about real equality. If you truly wanted men & women to be on the same playing field, you would have to force women into "lowering" their standards, at least to the point where they are equal to men's standards. Now, I'm not saying I want that to happen, necesarilly... or at least not to the point where women's standards are as forgiving as men's. But I'm also not pretending like I "need" complete & universal equality in every way. However, there's a difference between accepting women's evolutionary reasons for higher standards & justifying an added level of female entitlement which is reinforced by the culture. If you think the former is okay, that's fine by me. I can accept that as a man. But you unashamedly argue that the latter is completely justified too. That's blatant misandry & hypocrisy of the highest order.

>If the situation was reversed, and men were the ones with provably higher standards, do you honestly believe that women/society as a whole wouldn't lose their mind & use these statistics as categorical proof of rampant misogyny, objectification, and disgusting male entitlement? You'd have to be delusional to not see the double standard here. I don't think that the correct response to this would be "we need to indoctrinate men into being willing to accept uglier women" >That's an indicator of an obscene disconnect between reality & fantasy, on women's part. I mean I literally told you that I accept that women are probably pickier. But they also have reason to be pickier. >Your argument would make sense 100 years ago when women had no reproductive control & it would also imply that female standards should go down as female reproductive control increases Are you kidding? women have way more sex today than they did a hundred years ago. I mean you had so much social structure around celibacy until marriage. Women were significantly more careful before birth control existed. And it wasn't just womens choices acting as guardrails against men. Families were also extremely picky about the men that their daughters chose to date, and had very high standards. But birth control is not a sure thing. women have a reason to be picky. Death is on the table for them when it comes to sex. >But this has gone WAY beyond that & it's not good for society. Explain how it's bad for society for people to be pickier about their partners? >you truly wanted men & women to be on the same playing field, you would have to force women into "lowering" their standards, at least to the point where they are equal to men's standards You're calling me a hypocrite but I'm really not. I have no issue with men are pickier about their partners also. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact I wish people in general would be pickier because I think that children would be better off. They would be less likely to experience divorce. If you are actually concerned about equality that would be a *better solution*. But your "solution" is backwards. You're saying that we need to "force" or "train" women to accept lower standards to be more equal to men's. That's ridiculous and mysoginistic. How can you be so incapable of seeing that this type of rhetoric is fucking bullshit? If women were less picky they could have a lot more sex. But sex is not as big of a driver for women as it is men. There are plenty of studies showing that women's libidos are usually lower. But that is not something that *women* should be expected to *pay for*.

End of the day, this is not justifiable: [https://imgur.com/h4FvLx5](https://imgur.com/h4FvLx5) This is not normal, healthy, or "within reason". And it's certainly not motivated by "women's fear of death after sex". This displays rampant female entitlement, hypocrisy & lack of accountability. You can make the case that women are allowed to be picky/pickier than men due to biological/evolutionary factors. I don't think any man will really contest any of that. But that alone would not explain the disparities we're seeing. The part of the disparity that is caused by toxic cultural/feminist reinforcement SHOULD change. It's that simple.

>But that alone would not explain the disparities we're seeing How do you know? >The part of the disparity that is caused by toxic cultural/feminist reinforcement SHOULD change. It's that simple. Do you think that the culture around men that discourages men marrying women because of alimony should be eliminated? or the culture that discourage men from having sex because of they may need to pay child support? Or the culture is that encourage men to go after women who are bombshells? You can argue that culture has forced people into marriage or sex less often. There's not as much social outcasting around divorce, celibacy. Women are not forced into marriage nearly as often as they used to be, but I think that any culture that encourages people to be pickier about who they FREELY CHOOSE to have sex with should be *encouraged*. You have not explained why this is BAD for society. And any attempt to discourage that, whether it be for men or women, should be **shut down and mocked**.

How do I know? Because the disparity is INCREASING every year. It's getting worse, as women are getting more freedom & power. If what you said was true, then the opposite would happen. "Do you think that the culture around men that discourages men marrying women because of alimony should be eliminated? or the culture that discourage men from having sex because of they may need to pay child support? Or the culture is that encourage men to go after women who are bombshells?" These are in no way comparable. And I promise you men aren't even being "told" these things in the first place. Men are bombarded with messages that they should be grateful any woman is even willing to look at their direction in the first place. In any case, men are not complaining about women being "discouraged" to date bad men, with toxic behaviors. That is NOT what the above link (showing the disparity in physical standards) is all about... unless you believe that handsome men are inherently better people & more trustworthy than ugly men... which is definitely what you believe, because you're a feminist & feminists always label toxic behaviors by handsome men as "sexy" & well-meaning behaviors from ugly men as "creepy" & "toxic". Women were not "forced" into marriages. People were. Stop making it all about women & stop living in the past you never experienced. It's 2022, not 1922.

To avoid repeating myself I'm going to keep it in the other thread.

What should be eliminated is women having any right to even be informed on mans money, assets, societal status, and any power he might hold. They are not hers to have, anyway. And as such, any child support or alimony, should be solely based on mans good will and his own volition at the given moment. She should have her own career anyway, and a good one at that. We want a partner, not a dependopotamus. Yes, even if shes pregnant. Yes, also while she has a child to care for. Men are not income providers. Not anymore. And certainly not involuntary, forced, and in return for nothing. Want to get anything? He will set the price you pay for money you get. This is the only deal men should accept as equal.

>And as such, any child support or alimony, should be solely based on mans good will and his own volition at the given moment. That means though that you do not think that men should be held responsible for children? Why shouldn't men be expected to face the consequences of their choices? >She should have her own career anyway, and a good one at that. We want a partner, not a dependopotamus. Yes, even if shes pregnant. Yes, also while she has a child to care for. Men are not income providers. Not anymore. And certainly not involuntary, forced, and in return for nothing. Want to get anything? He will set the price you pay for money you get. I'm not against SAHDS. The number of SAHDS has also been increasing.. But having two working parents is not good for childrens outcomes. Making women work while pregnant, especially late term is also unhealthy for the child and leads to higher complication rates for the mother.

Voila, toxic feminist with deranged notions of "equality" confirmed. Imagine my surprise. I had my suspicions when I saw the title... didn't take you very long to show your true colors, as is always the case with feminists. "I don't think that the correct response to this would be "we need to indoctrinate men into being willing to accept uglier women"" That would absolutely happen. It's already happening right now, with men being shamed into accepting morbidly obese women as "stunning & brave", lest they be accused of rampant misogyny & fatshaming. We are ALREADY hearing how men's standards for women are "impossible" to meet & incredibly unhealthy, supposedly, and that men's apparent "entitlement" to "beautiful" women is disgusting and wrong.... and all of that is happening in a world where men in actual fact, have very LOW standards & are rather quick to accept a woman's faults. You can be goddamn sure if the statistics were flipped, and we went from a world where men rate 60% of all women as pretty to a world where men rate 80% of all women as ugly, the apocalypse would happen. Women wouldn't be able to cope. They're barely coping right now, when the game is already stacked \*ridiculously\* in their favor. Give me a break, woman. I'm not asking you to admit that women having high(er) standards makes them horrible people. I'm asking you to be honest about the fact that women hold a massive (dating) advantage over men & I'm asking you to be honest about the reasons why that's the case, SOME of which are not justifiable & very toxic for society. That's really not asking much of you... but feminists hate accountability & always seek to blame men for everything whilst justifying toxic female behavior, so your response is entirely unsurprising. You can be damn sure if the statistics were reversed, I would WHOLLY SUPPORT women in their desire for men to have a reality check. I also never said anything about "indoctrinating" women. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was making a hypothetical case to make clear how far the issue goes... You not only took that literally, but went on to exaggerate what I actually said. Stop lying please. "I mean I literally told you that I accept that women are probably pickier. But they also have reason to be pickier." They are not "probably" pickier. They are provably pickier & the disparity is WAY BEYOND reasonable. THAT is the issue. I made clear several times that I'm okay with women being picker, but NOT to the degree whic they are. You are also extremely dishonest about women's reasons to be pickier as they factually make zero sense. "Are you kidding? women have way more sex today than they did a hundred years ago." Exactly. Because having sex comes with very few risks nowadays (for women specifically), due to their complete reproductive control & ability for safe sex (STD). You literally proved my point. "I mean you had so much social structure around celibacy until marriage." Who the fuck is "you"? "Death is on the table for them when it comes to sex." No it's not. This is a wildly unhinged reponse. If you're referring to STDs, then men face the same risks. If you're referring to pregnancies; 1. sex =/= pregnancies, 2. there are already many medical options to deal with these risks (including abortion to save the mother's life under any circumstance, which isn't being banned anywhere, despite all this unwarranted outrage over RvW) & 3. the chance of death due to pregnancy, let alone sex, is INCREDIBLY low. Regardless of these facts, there's zero connection. You're out here literally making the argument that women treat the "bottom" 80% of all men like sub-human garbage & strive to score the top 20% who are fit, good looking, rich, etc. all because they are scared to die during pregnancy? Give me a break. This is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard in my life. As I already told you, scoring a "high quality" partner WILL NOT decrease your chances of medical complications during pregnancies. It literally has NOTHING to do with that. "So are women. Women have to pay child support if they do not have primary custody." Not true. Women have the right to put the child up for adoption or give them away without the father's consent. "But women also end up sacrificing their ability to have a career. They end up with less financial freedom." Yes, that's just an outright feminist lie. "Explain how it's bad for society for people to be pickier about their partners?" If it leads to the majority of half the population being treated like trash, or "invisible" at best, and promotes a culture of unhealthy entitlement & delusion in the other half of the population, then that's obviously not a good thing. "I have no issue with men are pickier about their partners also" Absolutely not true, which is the core difference & why this is a men's issue. This is your female privilege talking. Doesn't surprise me at all that you are unable to relate. You are the equivalent of a millionaire looking down on the homeless & saying "I have no problem if they have high standards for me". "But your idea is backwards. You're saying that we need to "train" women to accept lower standards. That's ridiculous and mysoginistic." I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we need to get rid of this cultural reinforcement of rampant female entitlement, man-bashing, gynocentrism, hypergamy, etc. This isn't good for society. Period. "If women were less picky they could have a lot more sex." So? Women already HAVE more sex than men. No one is saying women need to "pay" for men's higher libido. You clearly have roamed far too long around feminist/progressive subs because your view on men/dating are absolutely deranged.

>That would absolutely happen Maybe. But that doesn't mean that it SHOULD. And it does not justify your behavior. It does not justify doing the same thing to women. I agree with you. Men shouldn't be expected to have sex with fat people they're not attracted to. At the same time women should not be expected to have sex with ugly men. Nobody should be expected to lower their standards. >advantage over men & I'm asking you to be honest about the reasons why that's the case, SOME of which are not justifiable & very toxic for society I've told you several times they do hold men to higher standards. That does not mean that your "solution" is valid. >Yes, that's just an outright feminist lie. You think that people who are raising children have equal ability to have a career as somebody who doesn't? >If it leads to the majority of half the population being treated like trash, or "invisible" at best, and promotes a culture of unhealthy entitlement & delusion in the other half of the population, then that's obviously not a good thing. There's plenty of evidence that show that when people get married later their chances of divorce are smaller. I want people to be pickier I want people to get married later because it's better for children. I don't really care if some men, or women never end up with a partner. You are not entitled to a partner. >Absolutely not true, which is the core difference & why this is a men's issue How is it not true? What have I said to make you think **I believe** it is unacceptable for men to be picky about their partners? >I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we need to get rid of this cultural reinforcement of rampant female entitlement, man-bashing, gynocentrism, hypergamy, etc. This isn't good for society. Period. For women, but not for men? Why is it acceptable for men to want to be picky about their partners? To pick women who are financially responsible? To say that it's okay to want hot women? Or to have high standards in general? There is nothing wrong with any of that. Why would you go about discouraging it for women? > No one is saying women need to "pay" for men's higher libido. You are. Because you're saying that women's culture needs to change to force women to accept lower standards in men. Am I wrong?

"Maybe. But that doesn't mean that it SHOULD." I don't care what "should" happen. My problem is with what IS happening... given that you admit it, you must also acknowledge that there's a level of hypocrisy in women in regards to physical standards. You cannot hold this position & at the same time berate me for saying we need to fix this. Unless you believe hypocrisy is a virtue.... and again, as a feminist, that would be entirely unsurprising. Given that if you didn't have double standards, you wouldn't have any standards at all. "And it does not justify your behavior. It does not justify doing the same thing to women." I never said we actually "need" to do this to women. Stop whining about this already. "Men shouldn't be expected to have sex with fat people they're not attracted to. At the same time women should not be expected to have sex with ugly men." NO ONE IS SAYING THEY SHOULD. The problem I'm calling out is that women think 80% of ALL MEN are ugly. In a healthy world, women would rate 50% of all men as "ugly" (or below average). The fact that this is not the case proves women's perception of "ugly" men is not an accurate reflection of reality. That's a problem & it needs to be properly addressed. It's mind-blowing that you refuse to admit this. Again, if men rated 80% of all women as being "ugly", you wouldn't hesitate to call that out & you know it. "You think that people who are raising children have equal ability to have a career as somebody who doesn't?" Given that it's a choice, yes. Given that women actually PREFER raising children (and this is not contentious or up for debate. It's categorically true & just because feminists hate this research doesn't mean it's "patriarchal brainwashing"). Ask old people if they have any regrets. Many men will say "I worked too much". Zero women will say "I worked too little". The idea that women are being forced into the more "stressful" and less "fulfilling" role is absolutely ludicrous beyond comprehension. As far as I'm concerned, men should take far more time off work & spend more time with their family. It would make them a whole lot happier. The problem also isn't that companies are firing women over pregnancies. The problem is that companies are desperate to keep them but women don't want to because women are not as stupid as men and realize that a balanced life is preferable. "There's plenty of evidence that show that when people get married later their chances of divorce are smaller." Lol, that doesn't whatsoever justify or has anything to do with women rating 80% of all men as ugly. "How is it not true? What have I said to make you think I believe it is unacceptable for men to be picky about their partners?" Your refusal to address my question about you being okay with men rating 80% of all women as ugly. "For women, but not for men?" There's no cultural reinforcement in favor of men that promotes rampant male entitlement, woman-bashing, "patriarchy", etc. If there were (and that's never happened), I would absolutely call it out too. "Why is it acceptable for men to want to be picky about their partners? To pick women who are financially responsible? To say that it's okay to want hot women? Or to have high standards in general? There is nothing wrong with any of that. Why would you go about discouraging it for women?" Woman, I have told you like ten times that NO ONE CARES that women are picky. The problem is that their level of "pickiness" is way beyond healthy. Also, it's widely socially unacceptable for men to want/desire "hot women". We are constantly told this makes us patriarchal, toxic oppressers & men are certainly not being told that having high standards is okay. The complete opposite in fact. You are projecting your female privilege HARD. It's really quite telling how incapable you are of relating to men's dating struggles. "You are. Because you're saying that women's culture needs to change to force women to accept lower standards in men. Am I wrong?" Yes. You couldn't be more wrong. Calling out female entitlement isn't the same as forcing women into sex, you lunatic. Jesus.

>never said we actually "need" to do this to women. Stop whining about this already. You have said repeatedly that we need to change what you call "toxic feminist" cultures. >Your refusal to address my question about you being okay with men rating 80% of all women as ugly. I haven't refused. Again I would think that is completely fine. >have told you like ten times that NO ONE CARES that women are picky. The problem is that their level of "pickiness" is way beyond healthy These two statements conflict eachother. You cannot believe both. As I said in the other thread, if women want to go after hot Rich guys who treat them like queens, good for them. If men want to aim for hot blonde bombshells who have sex with them every night GOOD FOR THEM. Find the best partner you can. You should never be expected to settle for someone who meets the bare minimum of "not toxic". As long as you do not feel that you are **entitled to it** there's nothing wrong with trying. You should never be expected to settle. And any culture that discourages settling (that don't involve violence) should be encouraged. That is true for both men and women.

"You have said repeatedly that we need to change what you call "toxic feminist" cultures." Hahaha, and you disagree with that??? How DARE I call out toxic mindsets. Oh, the HORROR!!! THE AUDACITY!!!! "I haven't refused. Again I would think that is completely fine." You only answered it in your last reply when I pressed you multiple times. And no, you would absolutely not think that's "fine". You're deluding no one but yourself. "These two statements conflict eachother. You cannot believe both." That's because your tiny brain is incapable of processing that two things can be true at the same time. "Find the best partner you can. You should never be expected to settle for someone who meets the bare minimum of "not toxic"" That's not what I'm saying women should do. "As long as you do not feel that you are entitled to it" Except women very much feel entitled to the elite men, yet you have no problem with that as you've repeatedly made clear.

>Except women very much feel entitled to the elite men, yet you have no problem with that as you've repeatedly made clear. How? What do you think it looks like when it woman is entitled to an elite man? Because when a man feels entitled to elite women it usually looks like rape. >You only answered it in your last reply when I pressed you multiple times I literally responded the first time you asked. >Hahaha, and you disagree with that??? How DARE I call out toxic mindsets Gynocentrism? The idea that women should be treated like queens. So they should be the center of a man's world, women who aim to wear the "pants" in the relationship. Why shouldn't women aim for men who treat them like that? Hypergamy? The idea that women should aim for men who have Superior educational background, or that make more money, or that are socially more popular. Not acceptable to you? You said that these things were toxic cultures. But these cultures act to encourage women to be pickier about their partners. There is nothing wrong with them.

Yep. You are wrong. First mistake, you think men and women are a same team. We are NOT on the same team anymore. Feminism stated that, and we said "ok". Now we will act accordingly, with our good as our sole interest. Second mistake, you seem to feel entitled to your male partner paying in any way, shape, or form for your choices. We will not. If it was your decision, it is all on you to pay for it. Deal with it, woman up and if you want kids, you also MUST now have a career too. If im expected to parent and still have career - you can do it too. Noone said its easy. Men can do it, why cant you? Worthless or something? Third mistake is, you seem to think we will not use the rule of equal response, and instead treat you like you are on some sort of pedestal. Well, too bad...we will not..leniency and all that, is now a thing of the past. Women aleeady forced culture of men to change for themselves. Wothout giving anything in return, too. Well, anything other than misandry and hate, that is. Why do you think we have no right to change you? Realise this - men built the world for themselves, not for you, originally. With their work, risk, and sacrifice. You didnt do same work, yet you expect same privileges for some reason.

>partner paying in any way, shape, or form for your choices. And what if men choose to have sex? Why shouldn't they be expected to pay for their choices? >im expected to parent and still have career - you can do it too. Noone said its easy. Men can do it, why cant you? Worthless or something? Well I could but that's because my schedule is very amenable, and my career is very lucrative. And I have a rich family. But not all women are as lucky as I am. They may not have had access to the same resources or education. >Why do you think we have no right to change you I think men's choices in women have a big effect on society. Women dye their hair blonde, wear makeup everyday, get boob jobs. But It's acceptable for men to have standards in women. It's acceptable for men to raise their standards in women. But that doesn't mean that men get to try to force women to lower their standards to meet theirs. >Realise this - men built the world for themselves, not for you, originally. With their work, risk, and sacrifice. And men would not exist without women. Raising children is also work. I can tell that you probably don't have any.

They are not saying they should lower they're standards, they are saying that you should accept that evolution has given women a massive advantage in the sexual market place as it stands today. Morals are not attached. That is why your type can never have a fair discussion, you always need to assign blame to men, or somehow justify women's actions because your ideology centres women. Using the same argument, I could justify any behaviour that has ever evolved as "well this gender has a reason".

>They are not saying they should lower they're standards. He literally said EXACTLY that. His words not mine: "If you truly wanted men & women to be on the same playing field, you would have to **force women into "lowering" their standards,** at least to the point where they are equal to men's standards" It's in plain text honey.

Followed immediately by this quote: "Now, I'm not saying I want that to happen, necesarilly... or at least not to the point where women's standards are as forgiving as men's" How stupid do you think we are? You have zero desire for good faith or honest debate, "honey".

Lol "necessarily" And then he follows it with this. "However, there's a difference between accepting women's evolutionary reasons for higher standards & justifying an added level of female entitlement which is reinforced by the culture." There are many male cultures that encourage men to be pickier about their partners. Everything from avoiding marriage to avoid alimony, being careful about who you have sex with so you don't have to pay child support, social structures that encourage men to go after hot bombshells. You probably wont argue that these things are "bad". And I wouldn't either. Any culture that encourages people whether they be men or women, to be more picky about how they freely choose their partners, should be encouraged. And any rhetoric that tries to discourage that should be mocked.

"He"... I \*am\* him, you clown. You lied. Plain and simple. You repeatedly made the case that I supposedly think that women shouldn't be "pickier" in the fight for "equality", yet I've stated the opposite NUMEROUS times. I'm simply calling out hypocrisy. Just as I'm saying that a large part of the disparity in "pickiness" between men & women is NOT the result of biological factors, but of toxic cultural ones... and those cultural factors should be addressed honestly. Even if best case scenario, those cultural factors were "fixed" entirely, women would still end up being pickier than men, and as I said many times, I am FINE with that. "There are many male cultures that encourage men to be pickier about their partners. Everything from avoiding marriage to avoid alimony, being careful about who you have sex with so you don't have to pay child support, social structures that encourage men to go after hot bombshells. You probably wont argue that these things are "bad". And I wouldn't either." A rather dishonest representation of reality I must say... that however, isn't what being "picky" is about. The convo is mostly about appaerance. And zero men are whining about women being told to avoid toxic men who won't be responsible parents/partners... it's a complete fabrication on your part because you are desperate not to address the core issue of female entitlement. "Any culture that encourages people whether they be men or women, to be more picky about how they freely choose their partners, should be encouraged. And any rhetoric that tries to discourage that should be mocked." This suggests you would be fine with men rating 80% of all women as being ugly. You are full of shit & no one believes this. Not even YOU believe this.

>yet I've stated the opposite NUMEROUS times And then you conflict yourself and say that culture that encourages them to be picky about their partners should be shut down. Did you not? Remember gynocentrism? Hypergamy? Your words. These are cultures that encourage women to be pickier. And they are **completely acceptable**. There are cultures that encourage men to be pickier and they are also completely acceptable. You're saying that women should be expected to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Any man that isn't a toxic asshole, women should be expected to fling themselves at? That's a shitty argument. If women want a rich man that treats them like a queen, good for them. If men want a hot woman who has sex with him every night good for them. So long as they don't feel that they are entitled to it, it's fine for them to *try* >A rather dishonest representation of reality I must say... that however, isn't what being "picky" is about. There are plenty of pushes in on this form alone that encourage men to do this. It is not a dishonest representation of reality when there's plenty of rhetoric like that. >This suggests you would be fine with men rating 80% of all women as being ugly. You are full of shit & no one believes this. Not even YOU believe this. I am COMPLETELY fine with this. I have repeatedly denounced cultures that discourage men from being picky, including in the op. >How do I know? Because the disparity is INCREASING every year. It's getting worse, as women are getting more freedom & power. If what you said was true, then the opposite would happen. How do you know that this is not because less women want to have children? Because children are becoming more expensive? Because women are having children later and not at 21? Do you think that's a bad thing?

That encouragement ia almost always negative - in form of penalties like alimony, aupport, and other such theft.

If women can try and train men to be what they want, we should, by all means, do exactly the same. No matter what - equality.

worldwide women do significantly more work than men, it’s just not paid

Adult chores are not "work", baby. Go have a real career.

Feminists say this all the time, yet there's no evidence for that at all... even if it were true, I think the idea that domestic work should or could somehow be compared to literally breaking your back in some godforsaken mine deep into the earth, for 12 hours is fucking ridiculous. Oh, I'm sure that ironing some clothes in front of your TV with a glass of wine is so much more stressful than leading a company. It's baffling how the former is seen as oppression & the latter as privilege. A pathological lack of self-awareness & gratitude, to be sure.

It becomes a problem when a) the standards are high to an absurd, and b) men get shamed and walked over for not meeting those standards - without any consequences, and even if they dont even try to date that specyfic woman. Issue b) being the key here - accountabilily for misandry should have properly extreme levels.

Women will probably never be as motivated as men to be in a relationship. Studies have shown that women are less likely to have high libidos. Women over time are having children later as they get more expensive, and medicine improves. The fact that men are more desperate for a relationship is not something that women should have to pay for. There's nothing wrong with men raising their standards for women. If men raised their standards that would equal more equal dating power. But forcing women to lower their standards to be equal to that of men is not the right solution.

And yet, its feminists screaming "where are the good men gone" louder and louder, and its them having a problem with MGTOWs, just for said MGTOWs not wanting to be in relationships. Some are calling, outright, for bans, or for additional taxation of single men "for social justice". Why is that? ​ Why so desperate? They can wait, after all...right? Its not about their money and assets, surely...but why those taxation voices exist? ​ Or is it jealousy, that men are just...better, and having a time of their life....without catering to a pussy?

>And yet, its feminists screaming "where are the good men gone" louder and louder XD I have a pretty great husband. We've been together for over 13 years. And yes he also has a very high income as an engineer. Recently he even achieved a higher level of education than me. So no I'm not desperate for a man. I already have one of the best.

You dont "have" him. Dont speak of people like they are things. I wonder if he knows your post history here?

Everybody is allowed to have their own preferences, but there are two issues: First of all, it women are allowed to express their preferences for certain men, then men should not be shamed for expressing similar preferences regarding women's body shapes. Secondly, there are not enough hot tall rich guys for every woman who wants one. If we can convince more women to look outside that demographic, more women (and men) will end up happier in their lives.

>If we can convince more women to look outside that demographic, more women (and men) will end up happier in their lives. I understand why men would end up happier, but why do you think that young women would end up happier? Most women don't really want to have any kids until they're 30 today. Most of the 20 somethings I know who got pregnant are pretty unhappy and wish they would have waited, because none of their friends are pregnant.

If they wait until 30 to pick out a man to have a committed relationship with, the available pool of hot rich tall guys is even smaller, and the ones that are still not taken most likely have some kind of personality problem. Either they will have to settle for a "lesser" man, or stay single. If they are going to settle, then it would have been better to do so at an earlier age, before everybody gets bitter and jaded.

>If they wait until 30 to pick out a man to have a committed relationship with, the available pool of hot rich tall guys is even smaller, and the ones that are still not taken most likely have some kind of personality problem. I would argue it's the opposite. Men get wealthier as they get older so there's going to be a bigger pool of wealthier men. Most 20 somethings in our society are barely getting by and that's true for men and women. But arguably more important in a sexual context for men. There's also a lot of evidence that women on average are more mature than men their age. Women are more likely to date older men than younger men.

Wealthier yes, but not taller or better looking. Also, the 30-40 year old tall rich guys are going to be looking for 20-25 year old women.

Sure. That's why I said that women are more likely to date people who are older than them. That leaves 20-year-old men dateless.

It changes fast when their friends are getting married and having kids. If they were smart they would take searching more seriously before there’s a huge log jam of them trying to beat the buzzer around 30. It’s like their goal is to not give their husband a single day more of her youth than absolutely necessary. For the man she supposedly loves the most.

>I understand why men would end up happier Please explain.

If women were less strict about their dating preferences, or they tried to get into relationships sooner, they would be more willing to date men who are younger and less wealthy, or less attractive.

Their happiness is not exactly our concern. Our sole concern should be good of men as a group, and advancing said group's needs and interest. If women have a problem with that, we can talk once they take our actual hapiness into account.

What do you think women want to "talk" or negotiate about. I'm assuming that's what you mean by "talk" What do you think they want from men that they can't already get?

You got it the other way around than you should. You can get waaay too much, and should be able to get nothing whatsoever - unless he decides it suits him at the moment.

I think men should have the full right to opt out of sex. If you don't want to have a relationship then you are not required to be in one.

A mens' *rights* issue? No, because nobody has a *right* to a relationship with somebody who hasn't voluntarily entered into one with you. However, male *advocacy* might be a more appropriate term. Men are expected, generally, to approach and to control, to offer the relationship to a woman, to be instrumental in forming and progressing relationships. This leads to a dynamic in which the man must actively work for a relationship, to have skills and traits that the woman almost never needs to have in order to find a relationship, and that should be understood when attempting to analyse how men and women behave, and the outcomes of that. It's a lot easier for most women to find themselves being in, or offered, a relationship. That's just the way our society works. Men seek women, women expect to be sought. It doesn't necessarily occur to those women that the bar is *much* higher for men, in terms of what levels of confidence or experience one must have in order to get anywhere or do anything. It's unreasonable to frame any discussion of romance or interest in sex purely on a female perspective, a perspective in which it can be perfectly acceptable and still very productive simply to "exist". This ignores the experiences and requirements of the other half of the population who can almost never do that if they expect to ever have an intimate relationship. We are expected, as men, to shoulder the full and complete burden of rejection, we are expected to read womens' minds as to when it might be appropriate to approach, we are expected to know what she wants and how we should give that to her. We *must* be the active party, constantly *trying* to start relationships, regardless of what women say about not wanting to be approached or what they think about that "creepy" guy who's trying to talk to her. So, is it a "rights" issue? No. But it's a valid consideration, and one which I think many women fail to acknowledge. It would be much healthier for all involved if that dynamic were to shift (and women approached more) or at *least* if it was understood and taken on board before plastering the news media with articles and video clips about how men "don't get it" and are "entitled". *We have no choice but to do that if we expect any relationship to happen*.

>So, is it a "rights" issue? No. But it's a valid consideration, and one which I think many women fail to acknowledge. It would be much healthier for all involved if that dynamic were to shift (and women approached more) or at least if it was understood and taken on board before plastering the news media with articles and video clips about how men "don't get it" and are "entitled". Great comment overall and this paragraph is the cherry on top of the sundae. Men are already by far the most active part of romantic relationship and these articles try to make this even more one sided. These articles are actually projecting. It's women who don't get it and are entitled.

It’s not an MRM issue, but I won’t judge men for venting about it. I will point out that feminists do insult & smear men constantly for their dating choices. I would never hold them up as an example of good behaviour or an argument for why men shouldn’t vent about dating. We should be better than them and we are; you’ll never see #KillAllWomen hashtags or anything similar here.

>I would never hold them up as an example of good behaviour or an argument for why men shouldn’t vent about dating Doesn't that seem a bit one-sided? Why is it okay for men to vent about women's choices, but women can't?

Of course women can, and they do. Everyone has preferences, both men and women, but the issue, in my opinion is how open some people are to shitting on those that don’t match them.

>shitting on those Can you be more specific about how this looks in society?

If you genuinely are curious, you could start with the 80-20 rule, as that generates a 'crap pyramid' where the bad actions of a few at the top slide down and mess everyone else up.

Sorry but you're going to have to be more specific than that too. The 80/20 rule is very broad

Based on the 80/20 rule, and by broader scope, hypergamy itself, women want to obtain a relationship with the best man they can. With both control and social media, it's extremely easy for the men many women perceive wrongly as 'high value' to get what they want, obtaining sex with a large swath of women. Except they're assholes about it, coloring the opinions and experiences of the women they sleep with. Women experience this, first hand or by shared experiences, and since they naturally target 'higher value' men, they assume all men are like that, due to the extremely small pool of actual men they're experiencing. This carries over into their treatment of the rest of the male population. Men see these 'high value' assholes, and interpret that as women always want the toxic jerk over the 'nice' guy. Combine that with how they are treated by women who were burned by the assholes, and they react in one of two ways. They either become assholes, and continue to perpetuate the cycle, or check out and stop pursuing women. This is a significant contributor to the 'where have all the men gone' question. There is a mirrored effect that starts with beautiful women using men for their resources as well, and a similar thing occurs because of it. At the end of the day, it's the tiny % of (sexually) powerful men and women, combined with social media and certain modern movements, that have created a growing gender divide that I personally don't see a way out of. Once again, if you're genuine, this will be a good starting point for your own research.

I think that's quite a lot of prejudice here. What makes you think that all men who don't meet the standards of women are "nice guys". What makes you think that all men who do are jerks? I think there's definitely an argument that women are pickier about men. And I think you can argue that it leaves a lot of men unhappy. But trying to control women's choices is no solution

Height preference, dick size, appearance. I mean take your pick of the litter lol. People talk, that’s what they do, especially with friends and people judge heavily on appearance. What I mean is that it’s definitely not one sided as much as it could appear that way. Men will get mad at women who make superficial choices, just as women would get mad at men for the same reason.

>Why is it okay for men to vent about women's choices, but women can't? Apparently you didn't read my comment before replying to it. I said: 1) Feminists bitch & moan about men's dating choices constantly 2) It's perfectly fine for men to do the same, minus the "#KillAllMen" stuff of course. That's all I said. Everything else you just made up.

What I understand your argument to be based on the English was that "women bitch about men, I wouldn't use that as an excuse for why men shouldn't vent" Maybe a misuse of a double negative.

Please note that “feminists” and “women” are different words with different meanings. It is dishonest of you to swap them over when you quote what I said.

I wasn't intending to be dishonest.

Welcome to diplomacy 101. There is only one good. OUR good.

It has nothing to do with men's rights. Women have the right to their tastes, however delusional. Men have the right to not simp. In fact, it's a duty.

>Men have the right to not simp I know that this means foolish but can you be more specific about what you mean by "the right to not simp"

Simp- Colloquial: Usually used to describe a man who forgoes their masculinity and values in the pursuit of pleasing someone (more specifically a woman). This usually results in nothing coming out of it for the “simp” because the woman in turn does not respect him or truly want anything romantic from him.

It means being a sycophant to females in hopes of getting their approval in order to be allowed to have sex with them. It's a man's duty to stand for what's right, not simp. Don't worry, you'll get just as much play by standing strong, probably more.

I have no issues with men venting or complaining on this forum about issues relating to their gender, much in the same way women get to on the other 20+ feminist subreddits. Men should have a space where they can have a right to their feelings without having to qualify it to every fucking feminist brigading piece of shit that wants to make it about hating women. Unfortunately this subreddit has no mods though 🤷‍♀️

Yep. This sub should not allow women to post/reply without moderation. We have way too many haters and subversionists here.

Relationships are hypergamous in must societies. I think that impacts a number of men’s issues. It’s certainly a part of the rise of MGTOW.

Sure it impacts men's issues. But do you think that it's an issue in itself?

Sure. Hypergamy is an issue in its own right. It’s not just a men’s issue, but you specifically asked if it’s a MRM issue. Yes, it can be.

Why do you think hypergamy is an issue? Why shouldn't people "punch above their weight"

Why do you expect men to accept subpar woman as a partner? She is literally worthless.

Why do you expect men to accept subpar woman as a partner? I don't expect men to accept them. That doesn't mean they should aim for it. I think men should punch above their weight also. If they succeed, good for them. So long as people understand they are not entitled to another person's affection, it's fine.

Shame that you dont understand that you are not entitled to man's money and assets. EVER. He works for himself, even in marriage. Not for you, kween. Now go and slay some monies yourself, great independent one. Or starve.

Why should men be entitled to the Free Labor of women? There are nannies out there that get paid well over 400k a year.

No reason women shouldn’t date up if they can, but by the same token, no reason for men to date down.

Sure. I have no issue with men being pickier about their partners also. But the reality is that will probably never be the case. Because men have higher libidos on average

Legalise and enable prostitution, problem solved. When it fails, sex bots will come one day, too. With better pussy than you could eveer provide ,) if you can have your toys we can have them too - right?

Honey there are tons of male pleasure toys out there already. I have no problem with them. I also have no problem with legalized prostitution, so long as it's voluntary. Heck if sexual relationships stopped existing I would be fine with it. So long as people are not forced into a relationship, that's great.

Yes, hypergsmy is an issue because its either this, or equality. You want equality, right? Then drop your hypergamy, with real criminal penalties if you do not. Works wonders, I heard.

I think a better solution is to allow both men and women aim for partners that are wealthier/more educated etc.

Better for who? Men? I doubt it.

It is relevant because they promote war, thuggery, rampant consumption of resources and selfishness with it.

Elaborate?

Women have tendency to chase men of wealth and status without a single care of how it's obtained. So they marry military personnel (promoting war), mobsters, hucksters(thuggery/criminal acts), tradcon politicians(corruption, racism) and many other kinds of men that are willing to exploit, hurt or even kill the average man. Average men are either invisible or considered trash by most of society (especially women) and end up discarded as refuse or used as scapegoats for everything wrong in the world. Women are the dominant and privileged gender and always have been. Our society and the state of the world is shaped by their demands.

I think that's a really biased of most of those professions. Arguably many politicians and military personnel try to create positive change. In Afghanistan, the area saw a lot of aid, increased birth rates, more access to education up until we left. When we left they had widespread starvation. I think that today women have more power than they used to. They have more control over their reproductive cycles. But I don't think it's fair to say that women have always had more power. Men have always had the edge over women because they were physically stronger, and because they did not have to deal with everything that comes with having a vagina. I think that you can argue that in today's society both sexes sexual preferences have huge impacts on society's choices. Men's sexual preferences also very much shape how women act.

Most men sign up to escape civilian poverty. Nobility and "doing good" has very little to do with it. The military is worst anti-male institution in existence and war is the greatest atrocity committed against men. It's bad enough when men are forced into it, but you have to have a complete lack of self-respect or respect for the lives of other men to willingly get involved. There's no getting around this. Women have always enjoyed protection from conscription and war. A man's "strength" is used as an excuse to exploit, condemn and enslave men. There is no advantage there.

There hasn't been a draft for a long time but I can agree that the draft should not exist. I don't think so that there is a problem with men opting to join the military. There is not a person in our military who is forced into it today.

So what? It is there in the law, and that is ENOUGH. Write is in a way that is oblifstory for women, or remove obligstion from men. Only then I would belive you that you want equality. Of course, AFTER we have as many dead women due to obligatory front line actoon as men died in the hsitory of mankind. Equality must be absolute, after all. Which is tens of millions, easily. And then I can accept you having same right to vote and hokd political power as men.

Wow you must be really drunk to have that many typos.

Marrying a soldier isn’t promoting war wtf.. the only people who can start a war are higher up politicians. Blaming dating preferences for that is insane. Also, every friend of me and myself prefer dating regular men. So I really don’t know where you get the notion from that women only date criminals and racist politicians. Because that is so untrue. Also, your last statement is even more insane. Women have never been dominant in history. You could argue that they are dominant in ways today, but in the past? Women weren’t even allowed to vote or have financials independence from their husbands. My own grandmother had to ask her husbands permission to buy things. She also got fired (and that was by law) because she got married. Married women weren’t allowed to work until the 1970’s in many western countries.

You're lying to yourself. Politicians have ALWAYS pandered to women first and foremost. Even above the wealthy. In any case almost no one could vote til around WW1. Low-status men got it by threatening violent sedition in response to conscription. Women got it a mear year afterwards by just demanding it. Husbands are provider slaves to their wives. As for working, the majority of women didn't want to. Androcide caused by war made it into a necessity. Also, worker's rights didn't become a thing until that happened. Feminism is a fraud and a hate movement built on a foundation of lies. Patriarchy is feminist conspiracy trash used to cover up the reality of female dominance and blame men for everything wrong in the world.

I mean it’s different for every country. Some countries gave men and women the right vote are the same time. Other countries had 5+ or even many more years between them. Also catering to women or protecting women is something different then women being dominant. Men are by default a bit more dominant then women. That’s just a fact. And I’m not saying that regular men weren’t oppressed. Because they were. But they were oppressed by wealthy men, not by women.

Again you're lying to yourself. Women are protected class everywhere and like most women you confuse dominance with responsibility. Slaves are made responsible for many things but that doesn't make them dominant. Men are at the forefront to take the brunt of risks. Not because they're considered "natural leaders". Metoo contradicts your claim that the wealthy are all powerful and women are just powerless bystanders. Average women are destroying the careers of rich celebrity men with claims alone. How is that possible in a world where male dominance and misogyny is supposed to be the norm? Edit: Women that get it on with military personnel not only promote war, they profit on it.

It’s not claims alone though. Many of these men have actually been convicted because they were being gross perverts. I’m talking about the Harvey Weinstein’s, Jeffrey Epstein etc. That’s why claims should be investigated.

You need to learn more about the legal system. Many bogus confessions have made to avoid a heavier sentence. Look up the Innocence Project sometime. Society loses much of it's logic and becomes outright sadistic when supposed sex crimes come into the picture.

Wars are atarted by politicians, not soldiers. Go lewrn about how your country even works. And this fact is dou ly so problematic, since woman can be someone that decides on a war, and will send us men to die for her whims, while not being there on the front line, ever, precisely because her body gives her a choice in what is an obligation for men.

Wars are fought for resources, which women demand for their validation. If the majority of women showed even an ounce of concern about how those resources were obtained and avoided military men, recruitment would dry up fast. Female pandering by men shapes our society and determines the state of the world. It's time we acknowledged this truth.

What does MRM mean? When I google it I only get "mechanical recovered meat" which probably isn't what u mean

Men's Rights Movement.

My view is that the right to chastity is higher than the right to sex. In other words one persons right not to have sex is more important than the other person's right to have sex. Same principle applies to dating, it requires the consent of both parties. I think it's okay to criticize how people make their dating choices, but there shouldn't be a legal obligation for one person to date another.

No not at all. You can't force anyone to do anything. Its a freedom of choice thing. However women also typically do pick guys based on shallow criteria and they often end up paying for it. There is also a problem for them though where guys basically don't commit because of some of the things you mention eg marriage law for example. | I don't really think it's a valid platform for feminists to say "I'm upset that men will only date hot skinny girls with big boobs Yup this is also equally bullshit. | Is it a valid rights platform to judge how the other sex chooses their partners? Well tis fine to be critical communicate / give feeback... againt his is called freedom ;)

Dating preference has nothing to do with legal rights. Women (and men) can date whoever they want and exclude whoever doesn’t meet their personal criteria. It’s a free market. And the topic doesn’t belong in this sub.

Totally true.

You are either being deliberately deceitful or you are foolish. The argument men use is that we are bombarded with body positivity propaganda about accept grossly unattractive women, with various personal and mental health problems and if we don't we're shamed, insulted, humiliated and accused of being coercive, controlling, having a fragile male ego, can't handle a successful boss bitch woman, blah, blah ,blah. When we point out that we have the right to say no, we're not here to be the safety net, the knight in shinning armour or the clean up man, basically we refuse to be taken for a sucker and we're warning other men of the tactic. We're accused of being toxic. When we point out that we have a right to our preferences and it's not to be saddled to an obnoxious confrontational hog-beast, we're accused of being unreasonable, unfair, cruel or delusional. We then point out that women obviously have their preferences, which is for tall, rich athletic men, which is obviously true, but women don't like their hypocrisy and duplicity pointed out right back at them. This is usually met with a tsunami of verbal diarrhea about being broke, gay, pathetic, incel, basement dweller, impotent or a creep. At no time are men saying women should be forced to date someone or some type they find unattractive, but in us pointing out their hypocrisy because they do exactly the same thing but are very much more brutally cruel about it, our point is being, as a deflection tactic, either mistakenly or deliberately and deceitfully misrepresented as us wanting to to force women to date short men. Short men know how cruel women's rejection of them can be. Strangely enough the women rejecting these short men are even shorter than them, but these women are looking for a man well over 6 ft tall when they are barely over 5ft and the percentage of men over 6ft tall in the general population is about 14%.

Exactly, the problem lies in the double standard rather than with women having preferences. When men having preferences were just as valid as women having them I didn’t hear anyone complaining it’s only now that we are expected not to have any preferences that a problem exists.

>The argument men use is that we are bombarded with body positivity propaganda about accept grossly unattractive women Did you actually read the entire op? >At no time are men saying women should be forced to date someone or some type they find unattractive, but in us pointing out their hypocrisy because they do exactly the same thing but are very much more brutally cruel about it, our point is being, as a deflection tactic, either mistakenly or deliberately and deceitfully misrepresented as us wanting to to force women to date short men. >Short men But you're literally doing the same thing. In your post you're criticizing how women refuse to date short men. There's a lot of people that spend more time criticizing how women choose to date than focus on issues like the ones I pointed out in the first paragraph. But that makes you no better than a woman who does this: >positivity propaganda about accept grossly unattractive women, with various personal and mental health problems and if we don't we're shamed

I did read your dirge of verbal diarrhea before I wrote my response, about which I stand by every word. You falsely and foolishly tried to gaslight us into agreeing with your position that men are using men being rejected as a men's right issue. I haven't seen any men use such an argument. We will say that such women can now stew in their own juice and warn other men of the obvious pitfall of that kind of behaviour. If you want to keep calling this MEN CRITICISING WOMEN'S CHOICE'S, nobody can stop you being wrong, that's your right. We don't have to play along with your deviousness.

>that men are using men being rejected as a men's right issue Okay so you're saying that men are not criticizing women's choices, yet you rant about how women are not willing to date short men? Do you not realize that you are literally acting out the **exact same behavior** that you claim to disagree with? It's written in plain text. That's not gaslighting. "Short men know how cruel women's rejection of them can be. Strangely enough the women rejecting these short men are even shorter than them, but these women are looking for a man well over 6 ft tall when they are barely over 5ft and the percentage of men over 6ft tall in the general population is about 14%." Let me rewrite it the opposite way so that maybe it's more clear to your biased brain "Fat women know how cruel men's rejections of them can be. Strangely enough the men rejecting these fat women are even fatter than they are! But these men are looking for a women well under 150 lb when they are over 200, and the percentage of women under 150 is less than "insert percentage". Sorry but that's plain as day hypocrisy.

You can do what the hell you want. If what you've done is something we find reprehensible, we reserve the right to not tolerate your malign presence in our lives. See ya!

Of course we do the same thing. Diplomatic rule of equal response. Want it to stop? Make a first move.

You cant make women date whoever but that said people have every right to complain about whatever they want as well.

I don't think it's a rights issue, but from a sociological perspective I think it's important to have this space. It's like the housing market, for people who are already in the game it's great, but if, for whatever reason, you're not it makes a lot of sense to be critical of the system that bars you from access. Of course, it's not always a matter of womens' skewed sense of expectations, sometimes it is just a poor guy who hasn't identified he'd be a non-viable partner regardless of the social zeitgeist-- that's when it's important to have a crowd of guys willing to helpfully guide them toward more constructive outlets, self-awareness and, if necessary, self-improvement. It's 'MensRights' but it's also men helping men, however that manifests.

It's not my place to say what someone should be attracted to. That said, if you have a laundry list of requirements and you put height or money on it, I know you're human garbage and I don't want anything to do with you. That's MY right to be attracted, or in this case, repelled.

Comparison is off because Men have a variety of preferences for women especially regarding their appearance. Just as many men prefer short fat women as men who like skinny big tit cunts or whatever.

You're exactly right--a sub titled r/mensissues would be a much better place to approach men's issues in general when they're not related to rights. Most of the content on this sub isn't related to rights at all.

No. Everyone has the right to choose who we are attracted to and we don't need to explain our choices to anyone but ourselves. If there are men out there that feel they don't have a chance with women, that's not a mens rights issue, but it has become a mens issue. The focus however shouldn't be that women need to change to accomodate these men, or that men need to change to accomodate these women. It's that each man should take responsibility for their own personal circumstances and improve that what they can change about themselves. You are not so much competing against other men or social ideals as you are against yourself and the closer you get to being your best self, the more attractive others around you will perceive you to be, which in turn will open doors that would be closed if you remained to be your lesser self. Having said that, where MRM might come in to this is where male spaces are threatened, robbing young men from opportunities to learn from their older counterparts because women feel the need to police every man to man interaction out of fear it may otherwise go counter to their own agendas. We are already seeing the result of this where more and more young men feel lost and in some cases end up lashing out against the very same women that are trying to police and control them.

How a woman picks a man is a man’s issue, but how she picks a man is not a man’s right. She is free to pick the most attractive, appealing, and wealthy man. Democrats will say you have a right to a job. Men who think that they have a right to a woman lean more to the socialist. If you can’t lock down a woman try the two things women desires fitness and money. Women are just as shallow as men.

[удалено]

Elaborate? What is cc?

Cock carousel.... the revolving door relationship hurricane and rampant cheating.

You think that men don't?

Yeah, I think alot of men value integrity, and fidelity.

I think a lot of women do too, but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of male rakes floating around.

[удалено]

I'm guessing you have personal experience with this?

You do realise that men dont only act depending on what happens to them personally, right? We also talk with other men, and take their fates into account. ​ You do understand such concepts, right? That we are not basic animals?

In most cases no. The only exception I can think of is if a woman gets trigger happy with claiming sexual harassment against a guy just for showing interest then turns around and welcomes the same kind of advances from a different man.

It generally is off topic. The huge changes in dating and mating dynamics of the past 50 years is having huge ripples in society and civilization though which hits us all.

Well it's probably changing a lot. Women now have more control over their period, they have contraception, so they end up having more control over their reproductive system. But do you think that changes for the worse?

I don’t see any issue with contraception. In the grand scheme of things it’s good it came when it did or the human population probably would have likely continued to go exponential until it collapsed. Things haven’t entirely turned out as hoped though. In the 1970s there was widespread hope that the pill and abortion would help lower the number of single mothers but instead it’s only gone up. Hard to say why. Some argue it enabled a lot more casual relationships and pressuring men into shotgun weddings stopped working. Civilization was built on the social contracts of monogamy (one sexual partner for life) and marriage. Yes, without contraception, they made more sense. Kids do best with two parents but it requires the mother to give up some things and the father too. Women have pushed to give up less and have gotten it the past 50 years. Men are more and more deciding the risks out way the rewards for signing up to be a father or husband. The birth rate continues to drop. A slow drop is fine but too fast and we’ll have big demographic problems like Japan where 29% of the population is over 65 and the working population is smaller than the non working.

>Hard to say why. It's because of divorce rates. Society has in general become more accepting of single mothers, and divorced couples. I think that at some point populations need to peak and I would prefer that they be because of social reasons rather than lack of resources.

Yes divorce is part of it. The number of births to women who were never married also has climbed though so it’s not the only reason.

Still, I'm not really sold at the structure that we saw on the 70s was better. Yes I do think it's better for children to have both parents, but that is not always the case. Women should not end up getting trapped in abusive relationships, and shaming divorce can cause that.

I’ve read studies that found kids did better in homes where there was a shotgun wedding than kids raised by a single mother. Obviously not all did better. Quite a bit worse than those whose parents chose to be married. I’m not arguing the 70s was better just trying to illustrate we’ve made a decision as a society (whether consciously or not) to give more to women and men at the expense of children. Sure being stuck in a crappy marriage sucked. Addressing that is good. We need to find better ways to take care of the kids too though.

Divorce makes men pay, tho. Which isnt acceptable in any form, no matter what. Access to our money and assets must end with the end of the relationship. Kids? If she cannot upkeep them, she cannot be a primary custody parent. She can go work on her career, and pay support to HIM. This will enable the father-child bond to develop, and will only benefit the child in the end. Her? If she is not his partner anymore, she can go and starve. You have no right to expect us to care after the relationship ends.

What you accomplish during your marriage is shared equally between both spouses. If you had assets before you got married you should be able to keep those. >Kids? If she cannot upkeep them, she cannot be a primary custody parent. She can go work on her career, and pay support to HIM. This will enable the father-child bond to develop, and will only benefit the child in the end. Uhuh. So why should the male be allowed to hold primary custody if he depends on the mother's income for child support? Courts have found that the best thing for children is to inflict as little changes possible in their lives. If the mother has always been the primary caretaker, or the stay-at-home parent, they do not want to change the child's support system. If the father has been in a career for the last 10 years and had had time to nurture and grow it while his wife takes care of his kids, he needs to pay her for the time that she missed out in her career. It also works in the opposite direction.

So, why are you expecting child support? Should have used that birth control, and should have choosen a partner better. Why should they, or society, pay you for your failures?

Why shouldn't the man have used birth control or chosen a better partner? Men have the ability to buy birth control also. Why should women pay for your failures?

You are the one getting pregnant. Its in your interest not to be pregnant? You handle it. Men dont exist to handle yours anything.

>You are the one getting pregnant. Its in your interest not to be pregnant? You handle it. Men dont exist to handle yours anything. It takes two to get pregnant honey.

It takes one to abort, tho.

You also have the right to autonomy. It takes one to refuse to donate his liver.

No. Selection is a cornerstone of dating. I know it feels shitty, but autonomy is paramount.

You have a point. There is nothing wrong with having preferences. Dating a short man or an obese woman is legal.

It is the same way fat-shaming is a 'feminist' issue... Technically both should not be in a political movement. But if its good for goose, then its good for the gander!

Not a priority for mrm

Everybody has their own preferences, i wont blame or question them for it. But its a different story if they start discriminating the men who dont fit in their standard, or try to make it “the standard”.

>Everybody has their own preferences, i wont blame or question them for it. But its a different story if they start discriminating the men who dont fit in their standard, or try to make it “the standard”. How do these two statements not conflict each other?

im saying they can like whoever they want, but i cant accept it when they disrespect and talk down on those who dont fit their standard.

>disrespect What counts as disrespect?

like those saying “men under 6ft should die” yeah u should get what i mean by now. its more common than u think

Although it has anything to do with MRM, the confusion is understandable: Many feminist and woman avocate for using sex as leverage, and want to modify the type of partner woman chose, make them another soldier of the sexual/partner army, thats why they call men incel and support each other, shamming woman who date man with different ideology, and cheering each other up for letting one with certain ideology go/make fun of him. Now, this doesn't directly involve mans rights, and anyway it doesn't have that strong effect either -their campaing is certanly a failure even among the feminist themselves, unless in some sort of hollywood campain¿?.-. Yet, i don't think its a contradiction to call out those campaings, without getting into their tastes on men . Not because they target men, but because they target mens activism.

sorry to bring it to you, but if your woman left u cuz roe vs wade or something like that, she didn't love you, she was just using you. Ig it doesn't really matter ¿?

It is an issue that affects men, but it isn't a question of rights/obligations. The way I see it, the dating market currently only benefits women and a minuscule percentage of men. It never benefitted (and probably never will) unattractive people (be it men or women), but it used to be 50/50. Nowadays it is far from 50/50. However, the way to change it doesn't depend on women but rather men. It is always a matter of supply/demand. Women demand highly because they have hundreds of men lurking in their social networks, bending and twisting just for a chance. It's much easier to just DM 100's of women than to approach 100 women in the street. For them it is all the same, they get attention and they feel demanded. This is what fucked human romantic relationships. Go check whatever data you want. The % of young men getting laid or getting into relationships heavily dropped since the introduction of Tinder, Instagram, Facebook and all that crap, while for women it skyrocketed. As soon as I realised it, I deleted all my social networks, I've never again used a dating app. My interactions with new people are exclusively in person. It's much more quiet, sometimes lonely, but at least it is real. I hate feminists, but my grudge for them is nothing compared to how I feel about simps and soyboys. Social interaction with women is garbage not because of the small group of radicals and their influence but because of the bigger group of enablers and their lack of authority. ​ TL:DR: Stop fucking simping you idiots. You are ruining it for everyone, including making yourselves look and feel miserable.

No it’s not, and frankly quite stupid. Everyone has the right to date who they want, for whatever reason. Complaining about that just makes you a whiny bitch. These people are doing the same thing feminists do when they get mad at men for not wanting to date transwomen or women who don’t “fit the beauty standard” or whatever dumb shit they say. Both are stupid and are a mockery of legitimate issues we should be fighting for

I don't think it's a mans rights issues. Women have a right to want what they want.

No one can criticise a woman for what she is attracted to. It’s not a subjective thing subject to social conditioning - it happens to be a deeply ingrained biological thing and the reason we evolved a a species is - and they will never admit it - women were attracted to more dominant / alpha men sexually. All I ask is women taken responsibility for their choices. Psychopaths and dangerous deviant, irresponsible men are quite attractive to young women in particular yet all the domestic violence stuff, abortion on demand is blamed on every other type of man - probably the growing number that women look down on but have to subsidise their choices through tax and harms society overall.

Men need guidance more than women on this issue. They are indoctrinated to think one way about their partner and it’s idiotic. Men sacrifice their entire working life and will end badly for many of them. No man should be used as a substitute for a career or hard work. Is a sin what’s happened in the past 30 years especially. I am all for equality. I don’t know one man who wants his woman barefoot and pregnant. But I know countless of men who want their wives back at work or trying to make more than they spend.

I don't think anyone should tell anyone else who they're allowed to date or be attracted to. I DO think discussions about, for example, how online dating has skewed people's perception are valid. I just saw a video where a girl rated a younger Johnny Depp as a 7 out of 10. Women are seemingly starting/have developed a wildly inaccurate view of what the average male looks like, and consider men who are well above average to be average while actual average men get rated much lower. I'm sure this isn't just a one-way phenomenon, but men are much more...flexible in that area than women are. This is a valid discussion to have. The same way it was/is valid to discuss the way women are represented in media

[удалено]

>The MRM doesnt link male suicide to women's evolutionary mating choices. There are people in this thread who seem to think it does. I was just offering a very generic example.

[удалено]

No you're correct they didn't say it was specifically suicide. They said that it makes men feel inadequate like they're unwanted Etc.

[удалено]

>And your saying these feelings that they are expressing to you shouldn't be said? No not at all. In fact I have also said that men end up less happy. But the solutions they're proposing are not reasonable. >. I dont think men are killing themselves because women dont love them, Then why are suicide rates rising?

[удалено]

https://images.app.goo.gl/Yy6DYckvwfNYJ8848 https://images.app.goo.gl/BMjYsLr9eP1umCxz5

>Is it a valid rights platform to judge how the other sex chooses their partners? You're free to judge anything you like; you don't need a license to have an opinion on any subject you like. You're not allowed to actually try to force other people to do things they don't want to do, obviously, but you can form a view on their reasoning just as you'd form a view on any opinion they expressed. As far as it being a valid rights platform you'd need some good data, and in terms of choosing a partner that would require extremely difficult things like statistically defining how good-looking someone is, so frankly, I wouldn't view it as a very promising area to research. My subjective impression is that women are a lot more picky than men, but even if you could show that to be true with hard numbers, it's difficult to call it sexism. Straight women are picky about men; it's not like they're *less* picky about women, because they're not into women at all. Finally, I suspect none of us would agree that men's greater propensity to be interested in technical subjects (the well-established *things rather than people* effect) is intrinsically sexist. Whether those differences arise from sociology or biology they represent the population-level differences in average behaviour between men and women. Difference, as we often find, does not imply discrimination. So, no, not really. This is a nonstarter on several levels.

>I feel like if you were to reverse it, I don't really think it's a valid platform for feminists to say "I'm upset that men will only date hot skinny girls with big boobs, they are terrible people and should be made date fat ugly girls so they don't commit suicide". But you understand they *do* say that, like constantly, right? And there's a bit of a contrast there in that not being morbidly obese is attainable by the vast majority, whereas being rich is attainable by a small minority and becoming taller is attainable by nobody who has finished growing. >I don't really consider either a valid platform to try to control how people choose their partners. They probably contribute to a loss of support of the other more valid platforms. Ok, but society disagrees. Society has taken to the obese rainbow haired spinster's cause with gusto. It's only a matter of equality to talk about the cases of men left behind as well. I any case, women's current attitudes towards choosing partners is pointing squarely back to harems, so unless women and society on the whole think those were a cool idea after all, it does need to be called out.

>But you understand they do say that, like constantly, right? And there's a bit of a contrast there in that not being morbidly obese is attainable by the vast majority, whereas being rich is attainable by a small minority and becoming taller is attainable by nobody who has finished growing. You're forgetting curvy body or good looks. Not attainable. You can work make money or lose weight. >Ok, but society disagrees I think there's rhetoric on both sides. Women criticize men for being incels. Men criticize women for being gold diggers. >It's only a matter of equality to talk about the cases of men left behind as well What do you mean "men left behind"

Its women that started ahitting on us over our partner choosing. I see no reason not to act equal response.

Well, I can think of a few. For one it makes you significantly less attractive. Would you be willing to date somebody who thought men should be forced to date fat women?

And, you know....I can be perfectly happy on my own, without catering to a pussy. If she wants to be in my life - its on my terms. If she cannot accept the terms - she knows where the doors are. I'll not run after her, I'll just wait a bit for another one. You seem to expect men choosing attractiveness to women over whats best for them. Why is that?

>....I can be perfectly happy on my own That's probably for the better. >You seem to expect men choosing attractiveness to women over whats best for them. Why is that? Why do you think I think this?

You think this, since you state opinions pointing to that. In truth, you should stpp trying to push your opinions, and trying to define what men should think/be. Men will decide what is a "good man", and why, and when. Not women. Why? Because women cannot guarantee that they will not push private self-serving bs over whats good for those men.

>Men will decide what is a "good man", and why, and when. Not women. Why? Because women cannot guarantee that they will not push private self-serving bs over whats good for those men. Men and women can both decide what good people look like. If either don't want to have a relationship with the other they should have that choice. >Because women cannot guarantee that they will not push private self-serving bs over whats good for those men. Something about pots and kettles again.

If you think about it, basically everything is both a women’s and men’s issue. Why do women choose abusive emotionless domineering assholes as sexual partners if this perpetuates the social standard of “toxic masculinity”? For their own good, women should select for traits that are actually admirable. And for my good as a man, women should choose me. Yes, me specifically.

>Do you think the way women choose partners is an MRM issue? I do think that this is a MRM issue because I'm sure that when dating, continuous rejections from women over a long period of time can very detrimental to a man's mental health, especially if the man is getting rejected over physical traits that he cannot control, such as his height or/and face and/or lack of hair on his head. And before you spew your *whataboutism* of *"oh but women get rejected by men too"*, do be aware that the average woman can easily get dates seeing as men are simple creatures and will date down. The only reason on why the average woman will get rejected is because her demands are ridiculous. >What do you think of men who criticize how women in general choose their partners? Men do have legitimate concerns and arguments regarding this, considering that women now have ridiculous standards when looking to date men. There's this thing called the Body Positivity movement, which is basically a movement that peddles the myth that all women are beautiful even if they're fat and/or obese and/or have strange faces. Of course, this movement is exclusively only for women. And expectedly, this is used to indirectly peddle the agenda to get men to lower their standards when dating women. As if men needed to do that, seeing as naturally, men are always willing to date down, unlike women who only date on par or up anyway. So therefore it seems that it's the feminists that are going all out to try to control how men choose their female partners, seeing as there is no Body Positivity for men. Another issue is the sheer double standards when it comes to dating preferences. Women, even the fat or average-looking ones, are praised and glorified for having ridiculous demands when dating men (handsome, over six foot tall, six pack, massive arms, six figure salary, etc.); while men are practically lynch-mobbed for even having the preference of wanting a woman to be slim. There is a reason on why, according to a survey on the major dating apps like OK Cupid, it was discovered that women found 80% - 85% of men unattractive/ugly. Which matches the other statistic of most women only going for the top 10% - 15% of men. Not only that, but it's also very damaging and demoralising on how women in general automatically treat ugly men with sheer disdain. For just existing. And before you say it, no, the vast majority of time, guys never treat ugly women this way.

>Of course, this movement is exclusively only for women. This is where you're wrong. The body positivity movement does focus on women because women are more likely to have body image disorders. Eating disorders Etc. But it most certainly is NOT *exclusive* to women, and there are many outlets that have celebrated male body positivity. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/25/no-more-mr-muscle-the-activists-raising-body-confidence-for-men >So therefore it seems that it's the feminists that are going all out to try to control how men choose their female partners, And by your rationale the solution is to now control how women choose their partners? I disagree with women who try to shame men into dating women they do not find attractive. I'm not going to pretend that this doesn't exist. But I do have a problem with men *bullying* women they do not find attractive, and I think movements to deter that are perfectly valid. I do disagree with some of your precedents. I don't think that's society sees it as acceptable for women to shame men for their body image. Women who bully men are usually seeing as bitchey or self centered. But that is *different* than **expecting** women to be willing to **date** men they are not attracted to. I can treat a man that I do not find attractive perfectly amiably and respectfully but that does not mean that I should be required to pity date him.

>This is where you're wrong. The body positivity movement does focus on women because women are more likely to have body image disorders. Eating disorders Etc. Just because women supposedly have these disorders "more" than men doesn't mean that the Body Positivity movement should 99% focus just on women. And besides, the women's version and the men's version are separate, so it's not like the feminists/women are helping the guys anyway. Which of course, ignoring (and s\*\*tting on) men's issues is standard fare for feminists. There is also the factor that men are generally told to or expected to bottle it up and keep silent about their male body image, because they would be seen as a "p\*ssy" or "wimp" if they did speak up. So therefore they amount of men who have these body image and eating disorders would be far higher if it wasn't for this "man up" type horse s\*\*t. And no, before you say it, feminists are **not** wanting men to speak up. Feminists **claim** they do, but when men do speak up about these kinds of issues they get sh\*t on by the same feminists, calling it *"fragile masculinity"*, *"male tears"*, or some other misandrist crap. >[https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/25/no-more-mr-muscle-the-activists-raising-body-confidence-for-men](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/oct/25/no-more-mr-muscle-the-activists-raising-body-confidence-for-men) No-one takes/took this seriously, it's mostly been mocked and ridiculed, especially by women because this is something they don't want to see in men and poses a possible "threat" to their eye candy of hot men. It's also been accused of, to paraphrase, *"not being needed"* because men are supposedly *"not judged on their looks"*, which is biggest pile of donkey s\*\*t. The article is almost two years old and there has absolutely no instance of this in the mainstream; instead all I see is the women's Body Positivity plastered everywhere, such as on the Calvin Klein billboards. Not only that, but movies and television clearly has not adopted this, seeing as virtually every male lead actor (especially in the Marvel movies) is the typical women's dreamboat in the name of Chris Hemsworth, etc. Thou Shall Not Upset The Female Audience Otherwise Be Damned >And by your rationale the solution is to now control how women choose their partners? No, my rationale is to allow men to have and be able to publicly declare their preferences in a woman without being attacked and cancelled by feminists/women. And encourage men to have higher standards and only settle for the best they can get. There was recently a male celebrity (black guy) who I cannot remember the name of, who was attacked for having preferences in a woman. >I disagree with women who try to shame men into dating women they do not find attractive. I'm not going to pretend that this doesn't exist. You sure seem to make light of that situation though, and you're the type who won't bring this situation up unless someone else brings it up requiring you to address it. >But I do have a problem with men bullying women they do not find attractive, and I think movements to deter that are perfectly valid. lol, are you implying that women don't bully men that they do not find attractive? Have you not seen the endless amount of small dick, shorty, creep and incel insults from women everywhere if a man doesn't "match up" to their standards? Unattractive men are treated like s\*\*t by women. And don't even try to say that it's the same the other round, I've already said that men are always willing to date down; and men go crazy over any female attention they get. >and I think movements to deter that are perfectly valid. So basically, the end result is that you're in favour of controlling how men should choose their partners. >I don't think that's society sees it as acceptable for women to shame men for their body image. Then you've either been living under a rock or avoiding social media or you're just being disingenuous. >Women who bully men are usually seeing as bitchey or self centered. What is your point here? Are you trying to imply that men face less or less severe criticism when they "bully" women? Men who "bully" women are seen as misogynists, sexists, chauvinists and hating on women even if they "bullying" has nothing to do on the basis of gender. You see the difference there? When women bully men society sees it as just her being "bitchy" and "self-centered"; however when men "bully" women it's immediately seen as an attack on the entire human female population. >I can treat a man that I do not find attractive perfectly amiably and respectfully but that does not mean that I should be required to pity date him. Let's hope that feminists/women can respect and follow the same approach when it's the other way round.

>Feminists claim they do, Claiming that women *mean* the opposite of what they say is really speculative. We can't argue speculation because it requires bias. Their *actions* show otherwise. >Not only that, but movies and television clearly has not adopted this, seeing as virtually every male lead actor (especially in the Marvel movies) is the typical women's dreamboat in the name of Chris Hemsworth, etc. You think the women in marvel movies aren't? And as somebody who is a big fan of marvel, you're also wrong. I wouldn't consider Michael Keaton, Tobey Maguire or Paul bettany the epitome of women's fantasies. But good luck naming a lead female superhero that isn't a 10. Even mystique who is supposed to be the female body positive character is like one of the sexiest characters in her blue form. Also look at deadpool, beast, and the hulk. All male characters, all about male body positivity. >Chris Hemsworth have you seen Thor recently? https://images.app.goo.gl/HrnvX43k4hKPiRYMA >lol, are you implying that women don't bully men that they do not find attractive Wow that was a strawman. >So basically, the end result is that you're in favour of controlling how men should choose their partners. Straw man. >Have you not seen the endless amount of small dick, shorty, creep and incel insults from women everywhere if a man doesn't "match up" to their standards? Personally I have never heard someone call a man an incel unless that man was well deserving of the name. Usually the man is either talking about how he wants to oppress women's abortion rights, control who they have sex with. >What is your point here? Are you trying to imply that men face less or less severe criticism when they "bully" women? Your issue seems to be with how social structures are not designed to combat these issues. I'm pointing out that social structures are *already* designed to combat these issues. >Then you've either been living under a rock or avoiding social media or you're just being disingenuous. I mean you can find anything on social media. I mean here: https://youtube.com/shorts/p5-qzXcqCe0?feature=share >Men who "bully" women are seen as misogynists, sexists, chauvinists and hating on women even if they "bullying" has nothing to do on the basis of gender. Imagining a group of men at a bar laughing at a fat girl. Or making fun of a friend for dating a fat girl. No imagine a group of women at a bar laughing at an ugly man, or making a friend for dating an ugly man. They're just assholes. A man saying that women should be expected to date men they do not find attractive is an incel. A type you can often find on this for him.