Right, and things that were originally seen as a “woman’s gender role” are also gender-neutral; i.e., cooking, housekeeping, etc.
But a woman can say “I want a man who can cook!” And yet men can’t say “I want a woman who can cook!”
Conversely, a woman can say “I want a man who makes six figures and pays for dates!” But if a man says “I want a woman who makes six figures and pays for dates,” people call him a cuck and say he’s not a real man. Women want to close the wage gap (rightfully so), but they still want a guy who earns more than them. Make it make sense.
The point is, women are allowed to expect anything they want from men. But men aren’t allowed to expect anything at all from women.
It’s like society took the concepts of gender roles, and tried to take the best of both worlds and give them to women, while leaving the worst of both worlds to the men. That’s not exactly egalitarian.
But a woman can say “I want a man who can cook!” And yet men can’t say “I want a woman who can cook!”
Not exactly like that. You’d say something like “I want a woman who’s into food” and if she can’t cook she’s obviously not into food. Framing it in terms of what a potential partner can do for them instead of what a partner likes to do for themselves seems kinda tacky, tasteless, gives people the ick, whatever it is people say about red flags or whatever.
But if a man says “I want a woman who makes six figures and pays for dates,” people call him a cuck and say he’s not a real man.
I’ve never heard of this happening. And I know plenty of people who will only date women with university educations who have high paying white collar careers (and plenty of women who have that as a strong preference or prerequisite for the men they’ll date).
People are allowed to have standards. It’s just weird when the standards are framed in terms of service towards a partner rather than something they can do for themselves.
Normal: I want someone who has their life together.
Weird: I want someone who can help me pay my rent.
Weird: I want someone with a car I can borrow from time to time.
Normal: I want someone who can maintain their car.
Right, but the point isn’t about whether or not it’s tacky. The point is that women can set any standard they want, but if a man sets a standard then people call it misogyny.
Also, education level ≠ income level. If you want a partner you can have intelligent discussions with on a regular basis, it makes sense to look for someone with a university education.
But if you’re judging potential partners by their income level, what does that say about you? It doesn’t have much of an indication on their intelligence or conversational ability. It says more about what kind of dates they can afford, what kind of gifts they can give. If a high salary is a must-have for your dating standards, then that’s honestly pretty shallow.
The point is that women can set any standard they want, but if a man sets a standard then people call it misogyny.
This just isn’t true. People set standards all the time. And plenty of people set unreasonable standards that leave them unable to find matches, at least for periods of time. Men and women.
People get angry when they disagree with the standards, but nobody disagrees with the concept of having standards.
For an example of someone complaining when they don’t agree with a standard, see here:
If a high salary is a must-have for your dating standards, then that’s honestly pretty shallow.
Sure, you can complain about the standard. But it’s still one I always had, indirectly: I only dated women with university degrees (and more education past that was a plus), and liked people who were well traveled, who had stable careers and just generally had their shit together, who liked food, who have hobbies. That all pretty heavily skews towards the rich, who can afford to travel and dine out and maybe pursue expensive hobbies.
Your focus seems to be on the up-front early dates, which was always kinda a short phase. Long term, you want to be with someone who has similar attitudes towards money as you do, and sometimes that’s easier to filter when they already have similar money as you.
I have single friends of pretty much every gender and orientation/preference. I don’t agree with your view that the world is harsher towards men with standards than women with standards.
It’s not that I’m trying to be dismissive of the dissatisfaction of being single while wanting to be in relationships. I’m just deeply skeptical of your explanation of how hetero dating works in the modern world, because it most definitely doesn’t match my experience or the observed experiences of my friends/family.
And I feel like having close friendships with women is an easy way to see how dating goes for other people, too. None of my women friends seemed to have an issue with my standards for women, even the more superficial things I preferred. I for sure was never labeled misogynistic by my women friends/cousins/coworkers for having my standards.
Right, and things that were originally seen as a “woman’s gender role” are also gender-neutral; i.e., cooking, housekeeping, etc.
But a woman can say “I want a man who can cook!” And yet men can’t say “I want a woman who can cook!”
Conversely, a woman can say “I want a man who makes six figures and pays for dates!” But if a man says “I want a woman who makes six figures and pays for dates,” people call him a cuck and say he’s not a real man. Women want to close the wage gap (rightfully so), but they still want a guy who earns more than them. Make it make sense.
The point is, women are allowed to expect anything they want from men. But men aren’t allowed to expect anything at all from women.
It’s like society took the concepts of gender roles, and tried to take the best of both worlds and give them to women, while leaving the worst of both worlds to the men. That’s not exactly egalitarian.
Not exactly like that. You’d say something like “I want a woman who’s into food” and if she can’t cook she’s obviously not into food. Framing it in terms of what a potential partner can do for them instead of what a partner likes to do for themselves seems kinda tacky, tasteless, gives people the ick, whatever it is people say about red flags or whatever.
I’ve never heard of this happening. And I know plenty of people who will only date women with university educations who have high paying white collar careers (and plenty of women who have that as a strong preference or prerequisite for the men they’ll date).
People are allowed to have standards. It’s just weird when the standards are framed in terms of service towards a partner rather than something they can do for themselves.
Normal: I want someone who has their life together.
Weird: I want someone who can help me pay my rent.
Weird: I want someone with a car I can borrow from time to time.
Normal: I want someone who can maintain their car.
Weird: I want someone who can fix my car.
Right, but the point isn’t about whether or not it’s tacky. The point is that women can set any standard they want, but if a man sets a standard then people call it misogyny.
Also, education level ≠ income level. If you want a partner you can have intelligent discussions with on a regular basis, it makes sense to look for someone with a university education.
But if you’re judging potential partners by their income level, what does that say about you? It doesn’t have much of an indication on their intelligence or conversational ability. It says more about what kind of dates they can afford, what kind of gifts they can give. If a high salary is a must-have for your dating standards, then that’s honestly pretty shallow.
This just isn’t true. People set standards all the time. And plenty of people set unreasonable standards that leave them unable to find matches, at least for periods of time. Men and women.
People get angry when they disagree with the standards, but nobody disagrees with the concept of having standards.
For an example of someone complaining when they don’t agree with a standard, see here:
Sure, you can complain about the standard. But it’s still one I always had, indirectly: I only dated women with university degrees (and more education past that was a plus), and liked people who were well traveled, who had stable careers and just generally had their shit together, who liked food, who have hobbies. That all pretty heavily skews towards the rich, who can afford to travel and dine out and maybe pursue expensive hobbies.
Your focus seems to be on the up-front early dates, which was always kinda a short phase. Long term, you want to be with someone who has similar attitudes towards money as you do, and sometimes that’s easier to filter when they already have similar money as you.
I have single friends of pretty much every gender and orientation/preference. I don’t agree with your view that the world is harsher towards men with standards than women with standards.
It’s not that I’m trying to be dismissive of the dissatisfaction of being single while wanting to be in relationships. I’m just deeply skeptical of your explanation of how hetero dating works in the modern world, because it most definitely doesn’t match my experience or the observed experiences of my friends/family.
And I feel like having close friendships with women is an easy way to see how dating goes for other people, too. None of my women friends seemed to have an issue with my standards for women, even the more superficial things I preferred. I for sure was never labeled misogynistic by my women friends/cousins/coworkers for having my standards.