BloatedGuppy said:
Randomly chides a forum full of people for their presumed opinions.
Supplies anecdotal, personal, emotionally charged evidence for why their presumed opinions are "wrong".
Submits a spiel about people assuming that they are "inherently correct in their assumptions", whilst making assumptions himself.
Sneers at the suggestion that making blanket accusations about women could be construed as misogynist, ends post with a diatribe about misandry.
I think that about sums it up.
Mate, I'm sorry for what the women in your family have been through and how that has shaped your view of relationships, but you appear to have a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas.
Point-by-point:
1. More directed at the OP, who quickly dismissed the notion as "rumor" within the first handful of posts. That was insufficiently clear of me.
2. What I see in "discussions" of these and related matters, repeatedly, is that on the basis of nothing more than the anecdotes of men frustrated with observing such male-female interactions, a great many people are more than willing to assume that the polar opposite of what the (sometimes hypothetical) anecdote-relater is telling must be the truth: they aren't
actually nice, they're only interested in obtaining sex, that it isn't possible to be both kind and frustrated, that they're actually socially awkward and projecting malevolence onto their more successful peers.
More to the point, it is exactly on the basis of emotionally-charged anecdotes of their own that such reflexive judgments are made, leading them to quickly dismiss anything to the contrary out of hand. And if an across-the-board conclusion is put forward, a single counter-example is sufficient to indicate that the conclusion is wrong.
That said:
A
UBC study concluded that, with regard to initial sexual attraction, women are likely to prefer men who appear prideful, guilty, or sullen over ones who were smiling.
One writer for
Psychology Today citing a Buss and Shackelford study, accepts the notion that women
are in fact sometimes inclined to accept ill-treatment if they feel their potential mate has other qualities, especially younger women and those who don't particularly value themselves.
And just for rounding things out, a relationship writer for
The Telegraph just flatly states, "like many women, I have an illogical soft-spot for massive jerks."
3. I may have made assumptions about the attitudes and intentions of those engaging these questions. What I've seen here, along with past experience, led me to those conclusions. Again, mostly referring to first handful of comments.
As to the greater question, I only wish that there wasn't such a pattern of a dogmatic acceptance of a particular interpretation. It's a complicated question to which there's little evidence of a simple answer, and engaging it as if the matter was already settled is worse than useless; it's harmful and destructive.
4. Making blanket assumptions about women certainly can be misogynstic. But making blanket assumptions about men- particularly assumptions based
only on the premise that their accounts must be contrary to the reality-
is misandric.
I've become frustrated with the notion that there's an acceptable, even
normalized blanket supposition that any man complaining about being "nice" yet being overlooked in favor of men who are distant, neglectful, and even abusive must be mis-stating the reality. And you know what? Some of them undoubtedly are.
But it's such a
common complaint that it bears
examination, not just dismissal in favor of a narrative that suits certain popular assumptions.
And the pattern that one side of an issue addresses the issue while the other gets to hold a referendum on the character of those who disagree isn't helping anyone. The constant refrain of "this is going to turn into a shit show because someone mentioned feminism!" instills everything with the idea that there
is no
discussion to be had, that there is only one acceptable line of thought and belief and anyone who strays from it had better stay home.
My actual opinion, if you care, is that this matter is two sides of a single coin, that coin being self-esteem and formation of identity, both of which are often still in turbulence in the teen-to-young-adult stage of one's life. The reality is that, while social mores are slowly changing, men are still usually called upon to initiate contacts and inquiries when a potential heterosexual romantic relationship, of any form, is being considered; women are put in the position of accepting or refusing such advances.
Within that framework, a man who seems distant and uninterested in the subject of his pursuit appears to be a man confident that he has other options, a view that makes a woman who thinks poorly of herself feel flattered and special that he bothers with him at all. Psychology is such that this can sometimes proceed even to the point of abusive behavior: someone who treats you that way must be worth it, because otherwise, why would you put up with them?
Conversely, a man who invests a lot of energy and consideration into a prospective relationship seems desperate, unconfident, and unable to find an alternate partner. No one's self-esteem is stoked by being, not the choice selection of many, but the only option someone thought they had a chance with. Indeed, the opposite may be the case: being able to reject someone re-affirms one's own value, one's own status as someone who has options.
Not everyone goes through this. If one believes one's own self-worth is not something that comes from others' reactions, it's much less likely that the attention of a male jerk or the rejection by the female potential partner is going to have a harmful effect on how one views themselves. And experience and age does, indeed, seem to temper these things, though some people never seem to leave such patterns (certain multiple-divorcees I know come to mind.)
I would really like to see fewer women
and men going through this. Our advertising tells us that a man without a woman is less than a man. Crap like "The Secret" and "The Game" introduces another generation to "play hard to get" ideas that re-inforce the idea that no doesn't
really mean no and displaying actual
interest is a turn-off. "Fifty Shades" and "Twilight" show us that the really desirable guy is a moody stalker. And many "discussions" about this are basically telling a generation of young men not to even
try being "nice" because it will be seen as a facade, and possibly reacted to with more hostility than
actually being a single-minded predator.
But we don't actually
do anything by saying "That isn't how things are, stop whining and shape up." People make self-destructive decisions and judgments. We need to stop condemning or affirming them and
help them.
If I flew off in my initial response, I apologize. People, including people I care about, are getting hurt, and extremely facile assumptions are being used to quell contemplating the matter in ways that could actually stop it.
