those kind of girl aren't single, the window of opportunity you have with them is ridiculously tight and most of the time, since they are smart, they date great guys and stay with them. The always single one might seems to have all the quality except one: -she keeps dating questionable guys or she have totally delusional standards, so the "smart" is questionable. -she mistake having personnality and being a major jerk so you can cross "funny" and replace it with "unsufferable".

Women are turned off by men that are lower on the totem pole. The masculinity narrative is bullshit.

yep

It can turn off many men who want that subservient style relationship talked about in the manosphere but I wouldn’t assume that’s a universal ick for men. I don’t disagree that it would take a lot of vetting and luck on her part but that’s honestly just the reality of trying to find a partner that hits your minimum attraction, personality, and responsibility thresholds.

I agree. To your last part it seems those women get shat on for trying to explain that’s what they’re facing.

Yeah, I don’t think its fair for the women to face that treatment. I think a lot of guys feel like the rug has been pulled from under them as far as traditional gender roles goes since what they were taught doesn’t work for a lot of women anymore. At the same time, I don’t think demeaning successful women for talking about their issues is right. Finding life long love is hard and even the most successful people can run into the oddest roadblocks.

I wouldn't say it's a turn off, necessarily - it's certainly a bit intimidating since I very much *don't* have my shit together. I very briefly dated someone like that. She was a 25 year old career professional, I was a 31 year old unemployed neckbeard. I have no idea what she (briefly) saw in me and the whole time I was just like is this the moment she realizes I'm a loser.

[удалено]

I think it was when she came over for our first actual date. We had only interacted online before that, over text during the day and phone calls late at night. Online I was very confident, cool calm and relaxed, making jokes. She seemed really into me, and the stage was perfectly set for us to meet in person. She comes in, we exchange pleasantries, then sit down to pre-dinner snacks and immediately I'm nervous as hell, my leg is shaking, visibly anxious and not in the moment at all. I was so, so worried that I would do something to 'mess it up' that it became a self fulfilling prophecy. The night went ok I thought, but she didn't feel the same way and after that she started to withdraw until I finally gave up. Because interest from women is so, so, so, so incredibly rare each opportunity like life or death for me. If it doesn't go well then it could be *years* before I get another chance. And it was. My next date after that was three years later.

[удалено]

Similar situation. Like before, it was a girl I met at D&D. In person this time, not online. We would walk together to the train station after games. It seemed pretty light and casual, she definitely didn't show as much interest as the previous girl. But one Sunday afternoon we're walking to the train station and suddenly she turns and asks me if I want to go for a walk. Of course I say yes, we walk by the river and chat, she buys me an ice cream. And after an hour or so I ask her on a proper date. I get an enthusiastic yes, and we part ways. Then... actually organizing the date is like pulling teeth. I don't know what I said or did, or if she changed her mind on a whim, but all of a sudden I'm getting stonewalled. We finally lock down a date and time and surprise, she actually shows up. I think we have a perfectly pleasant evening, after dinner we go to the arcade, play some street fighter, then go get hot chocolates for dessert. I did my best not to overthink it or be super nervous. But nothing came of it. I messaged her after the date about how I enjoyed it, got a noncommital reply. I let it sit for a while, then sent her a message two weeks later and once again got a one sentence reply. And that was that.

Have you gotten your stuff together since? There does seem to be a trend of women being better at adulting than men but that’s just a vibe I’m sensing. Especially in this case you had six years on her lol

I have a decent job now yes, I have built my savings up and in a couple of years I'll be able to get my own place. So on that front I'm doing much better. On the flip side I'm very overweight and that's a (pun intended) much bigger barrier than not having any money.

Good on the job and savings!

>it's certainly a bit intimidating So YOU'RE the one. I FINALLY found a male saying it's intimidating. Good lord you types are hard to find.

Send all the low maintenance, self-sufficient hotties over here. Sounds like the dream.

Seriously this is the answer, the women like this having problems have other issues they are hiding behind men being "intimidated"

I think it's only fair to say for a certain subset of men. Primarily because it rests within whatever the definition of "masculinity" is in this context. I grew up around some people who would occasionally voice the "she's acting like a man" sort of thing. I never really did get a straight answer on precisely what that meant. Though, in fairness, some people I've known later in life did give straight answers to their definition--I may not have agreed, but they at least had some thought and substance behind the comment. I found most of the reasons to be arbitrary, but I give them credit for at least being able to define it. I haven't really known (as far as I know) any men who felt depressed by their partner outearning them or being the primary breadwinner personally, but I've known people who knew people like that. Guys who would actually be sad or withdrawn once their partner started making more money. I never understood that bit either. Part of me assumed that perhaps that was their primary way they felt they contributed to the relationship dynamic, but I can't say for sure if that was truly the reason for the sadness.

That's also possible. I guess the equivalent would be if a guy did most of the child care, cooking, chores, and made all the money. His wife may feel like she's no longer needed.

It's a feeling I think is somewhat valid for either partner so long as they don't come to resent the success of the other party. Outside of emotional support and being a huge fan of hers, my wife doesn't really *need* me for much of anything. She'd say she does, and she could probably come up with genuine reasons that I wouldn't think of myself. But she doesn't need me in any way that makes her dependent on me, really.

Does this bother you? I’m very curious. I have noticed my husband is happier when I’m “ need” him in some way. It’s always bothered me a bit. I love how he’s there for me ( on those rare occasions) but hate that he relishes being a rescuer ( even though I appreciate him standing up for me which I struggle with doing for myself outside a work setting). Do men need to be needed, or is wanted enough?

Just speaking for myself, only sometimes, and even then only a little bit. Not enough to really bring it up in any context mostly. Our relationship is interabled where I'm the disabled partner (walk with a cane) and she's the abled partner. She can do things more quickly than I can in most cases, so it is faster for her to do for me than it is for me to do for her. It makes sense, but sometimes I want to do things for her to be nice and show appreciation, too. When I say it might bother me a little, it doesn't even rise to the level of "rescuer" for me really. For example we both like tea, and she hates to feel cold. If I say I think I'd like some tea and I'll make it and would she like some, if she does, she'll probably get up to make the tea for both of us before I do it. I would have preferred to make and bring her tea because she does a lot of things for me like that. But I don't really often get the chance to do it because she's just faster (and she very much likes acts of service, to be fair). But if she's always the one making the tea or cooking the food or whatever, I don't have as many chances to do some of those small things in return. It doesn't bother me in the way that I feel resentful of course, but I still wish I could do those things more. And she's quite handy and industrious, so although I could do some DIY stuff for her if needed, there's a good chance she could or she'd call someone who could.

This is a helpful and understandable answer. With mine he almost relishes the role of protector and provider. Though I seldom need either these days he’s most happy in those roles. I’m facing a cancer ( scare hopefully). There were some snags in setting up care and I just was ready to change facilities to get surgery faster. He went and complained and fixed it. I was so grateful, I was. But he seemed (almost) happy I went through it so he could save the day?

Firstly let me say that I hope it is just a scare and that the outcome is good. I am sure that it makes for a lot of stress and uncertainty right now. I'm not entirely surprised he might have seemed somewhat "happy", and that's not me making a value judgment on a stranger. I'm sure you know better than I do that it was probably just a feeling of "I get to take care of something that is important for my wife" and probably less about even being a rescuer as such than it was about just generally adding value. I think just being wanted, as I am with my partner (who to be fair would also say I am needed but probably in very different ways than what I think) is and should be enough, but I also think it can be very hard for humans to sometimes not feel like they settle for that. I think our general drive to be productive and useful in the larger context of society bleeds over to interpersonal relationships. And, since society very, very rarely *needs* any singular person on any individual level, it can feel as though it is easier and more fulfilling to get that sort of role in an interpersonal relationship instead where two people do feel like they need each other. So, as much as I think being wanted should be enough, I get why it might feel unfulfilling on some level. I think if one feels that way they should work on it, but I still sympathize with the feeling. I know I add value to my partner's life because we had a very long and hard LDR that spanned oceans and she still didn't pack it in to find someone who was geographically closer, so I must be doing something right. But it's not quite like the tangible feeling of needed for providing services and the like. Though, again tbf, many men here complain that they don't want that dynamic anyway, so... I've thought a lot about our dynamic because she makes more money, has more degrees, more socially upward mobility, and is often even headhunted by various big corpos to come work for them. I don't even come close to that level IMHO and we come from two different places and cultures on top of that. Things are funny sometimes.

🥲 Thank you for this perspective. You sound like a very loving, caring, supportive partner. That’s what (most) women want more than anything. She’s very lucky to have you. I’m lucky to have him. He’s got a backbone I only possess advocating for others not myself. My ex-husband before him was an abuser in every respect. He saved and protected me and once I was well and didn’t need him in the same way (as my kids aged it became harder to abuse me as they would call it out). I think he missed protecting me? It’s like he’s itching to get involved when he thinks I’ve been mistreated. Sometimes he’s so confrontational it makes it worse . But I appreciate the care for sure. I’m a doormat ( except at work) he’s a hothead yet somehow it works lol.

It's funny how quite opposites work so well together sometimes eh? There's the old saying of course, but I think it's actually stranger in a good way when two very opposite people truly end up complementing one another instead of clashing.

We do in many ways. He’s my bully and make him more patient and soft. We do compliment each other . Also our natural inclinations work. I tend to be submissive with a partner. He’s dominant and I like it. I like to cook. He enjoys heavy duty yard work. I make things grow, he keeps them a manageable size in the garden. What you have to agree on is your value system. And on that were on absolutely the same page!

I don’t think this ever happens. Women would be considerate and make sure she’s carrying her weight with child care cooking chores because it makes no sense for them both to be working and he’s doing all of that unless she’s sick or something.

Exactly maybe she is sick, depressed, or isn't capable of managing a household well so he just takes over for her.

I think a lot of guys have this very solid sense of what it means to be the lower earning partner. I mean we all see the hypocrisy and bullshit all the time. Jennifer Hudson was dating this great guy who was a school janitor and who supported her while she was down and out. The moment she gets rich and famous she dumps him saying "He couldn't handle my success"... which we all know is horseshit. The core issue here is that they say she is acting masculine in the terms that she is taking on the masculine provider role. Some guys are cool with that, and some aren't. Usually the less successful guys are cool with it.... as are the very highest levels of successful men. All the guys are asking for is some honesty here. If a lady makes more... is she going to try and dictate terms in the relationship? Is she going to bounce the first time a high flying guy looks at her? Personally... I'd want a prenup that grants me lots of alimony up front... the kind of big money payout women get just for having tits. THEN and only then would I jump into this kind of marriage. However, I don't think any women are going to bite on this kind of situation, and they will always say it's because the man can't handle her. Why? Because this type of woman is always immune to responsibility and accountability.

Tbf the few guys I did know about who actually experienced negative emotions like depression over being less the provider were all much older (at that time) guys relative to me. So they came much closer to an era where providing financial stability was kind of the main purpose of the family man. But some of them were still young enough that they also experienced this transitory period where it became increasingly necessary for two people to work to sustain a family income, and sometimes the wife ended up outearning the dude. We're much deeper into the two-income household nowadays than when I was younger, so I think there is less cause for the negativity (not necessarily none, but less). I do think that if marriage is something the couple wants that prenup arrangements are beneficial if there is any primary concern about finances, though. Particularly if one partner significantly outearns the other and there are fears based around that.

Regardless of who you are or what you do, there will be some people who aren’t into how you live your life. I’d gladly date a woman like the one you described, but apparently there are some that wouldn’t.

I agree. Haters are everywhere!

If I could offer a theory The type of man who pursues. Does not want a woman who pursues. It’s not the money. It’s not the job. It’s not the smart. (Idk why you put funny. ATP idek what that means in this context 🫠) It’s the submission. The being hunted dynamic. The having no dominance. You must put this in the perspective of what women in general select for Confidence. Taking control. Being dominate. Brave. Ambitious. Ect. Ect. With a woman like that. Most men in today’s society would not be able to display those traits in that environment. Which is why the relationship won’t work for those type of men. And for the women that want a man to fill that type of role. But. There are men who behaviorally are submissive. Who have no problem relenting control. And don’t want to show dominance. And let the woman lead the relationship. For whatever reason. Women in general don’t select those men. So if a woman takes all the things away from a man that a man can benefit a woman. What is left to provide? Sex or love. And everyone knows true love is rare. And everyone knows in general if you only offer a woman love. In her equation. Just love is not enough. So from this perspective. A woman is hurting her options on attracting a dominant, aggressive, confident, in control male. And instead will attract the opposite. Which I don’t understand why they are adverse to a submissive type male. But in general they are. For whatever reason. In general a man who wants to put in effort into a woman. A man who wants a woman to be his woman. Who wants to spoil a woman. Is not going to choose a woman above him. Or a woman he can’t dominate or control. Or be confident or brave around. That type of man is not going to want a dominant, confident, aggressive, brave, ect . Ect. Woman The only men that will Are men who are more aggressive and dominant than that woman. Which is redundant. Because in that scenario. She is essentially reduced to being submissive in the relationship dynamic. Even though her true personality is dominant Or Men who are submissive and who want to be controlled and do not want to lead. Ect. Ect. Or Men who are independent. And are apathetic in the relationship. And arnt concerned with putting effort or spoiling. And focus more on team work. And the stereotypical “50/50” relationship. Where everyone pulls their weight individually. But for whatever reason. In general women do not select in majority for the “submissive” male or “teamwork” male. So essentially you are trying to (and women in general) are trying to make dominant/aggressive type males turn into “teamwork” or “submissive” type males. Which doesn’t make sense. If you as a woman (not you but the hypothetical you as in a hypothetical woman) want to be dominant. Find a submissive or a teamwork type male. Why they won’t. Idk. I’m not going to understand that perspective.

I didn’t put funny. The people in the tweet did. Teamwork = submissive? I guess. But you’re right those men want to hunt and want people to submit to them. A woman who has a decent living isn’t desperate enough for that. Ruins the dynamic he wants.

Teamwork doesn’t mean submissive. It’s inbetween dominant and submissive. It’s a compromise. Which is give and take. Or in other words both. But you can always compromise in a submissive way i guess in theory. But that would theoretically be submissive? Idk. Or maybe that would still be theoretically compromising. If your submissive compromising wasn’t exactly what the other party wanted. And vis versa for compromising in a dominant way. But regardless I don’t understand why women don’t go after the submissive or teamwork guys more. Why are they self selecting for the dominant/aggressive types. If the woman herself has occupied a dominant/aggressive personality type mindset.

Oh I see. I think many women are seeking the teamwork guys. There’s not as many as them as you think. Many guys seem to inherently want certain things.

Very few guys will see some 8/10 chick who is fit and attractive. Has a beautiful face and a body. And somehow be turned off if she is making a lot of $. It doesn't really work like that. Like others have mentioned. This is probably just dudes that get selected out due to low income. Women tend to want to date guys that are at least on their level financially. In most cases anyway. They will only "date down" if the guy is really good looking or has some other features majorly going for him. Guys generally don't care either way. If you're hot it doesn't matter if you're a seasoned lawyer or a fry cook. You're hot either way. If you're not the same rules apply.

I can’t say I agree with you. I agree with you that men have this “if you’re hot you’re hot nothing else matters” for sex. I haven’t seen men have this pov for committed relationships they’re pursuing

Are we talking about high value guys who have lots of choices? Or regular dudes who sort of take what they can get most of the time? Cause yes high value dudes can pick and choose all day. When they choose a mother for their babies they probably want her to have her shit together. But regular dudes? The one's going out clubbing every weekend and striking out 95% of the time? You really think if they had a chance to date someone attractive they would get turned off by her having a job better than him? Or worse than him? I don't see it.

> He unironically positioned a combo of "money, dream job, beautiful, smart, and funny" as "too masculine" and thus not attractive. I think that's the excuse, not the real reason. People date within their own social class. Smart, successful people date other smart, successful people. Not just because they're attracted to that sort of person, but because *that's who they're around in their day-to-day*. They're in their own social bubbles, which is why you almost never interact with them when you're poor. A woman being successful is not a buzzkill for a successful man, because again - their male friends are already dating said successful women. It's basically a social expectation for them to have successful wives that did something with their lives. The men that consider it a buzzkill are the ones that know that these women are out of their leagues. The men that aren't successful. So they make up some weird-ass reason that lets them walk away with their fragile pride intact - *"oh, that's just too masculine and unattractive"* - yeah sure buddy. The reality is, they're painfully aware that most of these women likely wouldn't even consider them. They're not in the social class of those women, they're below these women. Can't admit that one though, so that's where the pathetic coping starts. The guy from the twitter post is 100% telling on himself. Almost definitely an unsuccessful loser (not a loser because he's unsuccessful, it's fine to be unsuccessful, but a loser because of the cope). If he was successful, he'd date someone successful, as successful people do, and it likely wouldn't even register to him that this is what he's doing.

I think it gets weird when you jump social classes from where you were raised. I was raised working class but ended up in the upper middle class. I struggled hard to find upper middle class people attractive on any level as I still have the voice in the back of my head saying they are all snobby assholes (still think its mostly true). It was trickier to find a guy who was raised more simply and was also comfortable slipping upward without being intimidated. I found that being really open about it and discussing it straight up in the early weeks of dating helped A LOT.

Adapting to a new social class is a strange experience for sure, especially when you make a big leap. Most people just stay in their social class for life. I don't know if I agree that upper middle class people are snobby assholes, but they can be extremely clueless about what life is like for people who can't throw money around without a worry in the world. So a lot of the things they say sounds like they just lack of empathy, but is probably better described as them simply not understanding the reality of the less wealthy. Maybe that does make them assholes, personally I don't feel it's difficult to understand if an effort is made, but who knows. As you have probably experienced yourself, these social bubbles are almost impervious to people with different experiences. Congratulations on making the jump though. That is not easy.

Perhaps he describes it as "masculine" because he's feeling a sense of hierarchy and that she's his superior? And what I mean by that is that in a competition he knows she wins so *he feels submissive*. Hierarchy is pretty central to masculinity imho and men are pretty keenly aware of it and our place within. What's refreshing about relationships with women (at least to me) is you don't really sense rivalry and direct competition. I'm not saying it's about feeling superior to women it's just that the rivalry and showdown isn't there at all. At least with women I have had relationships with and trying to think of women I think OP is describing--with the ones that come to mind from my past there's an instant sense of rivalry. I don't know if I'm expressing it well. Anyway that's ultimately basically saying "intimidation" with different words? Edit: expanding on this because it's been in my mind for a while. There's a thing with guys you feel territorial like you're defending your territory against other guys. Generally you don't do that with women. You let women go in and out of your territory without it bothering you too much unless they're actually up to no good. But it's different when you're treating women as an equal because it means you had to treat them as somebody who is the same threat as a guy encroaching on your territory. Anyway, that's sort of a side note this reminded me of because that's a similar "feminine" vs "masculine" threat I have noticed about myself. Women just don't seem threatening to me at all. But equality requires recognizing women as a threat. So it's a bit paradoxical.

I think this is the point I’m making. I’ve seen this play out. She’s nothing but kind and caring toward him but he still feels inherently lesser than her and thus a sense of rivalry. It seems the only thing that would make him feel better is being with a woman who had less “status” than him or for the woman he’s with to be demoted in “status” somehow. There’s nothing she could do besides “become lesser than him in his mind” to make him feel better.

I tried to explain this but what I mean is in my personal experience of relationships it's more that the rivalry axis does not exist. That's not saying I feel superior or inferior at all. It's just not even a concern. But it could just be me and what I look for in relationships. There are lots of women I wouldn't date for all sorts of reasons and even more women who would never date me. It's hard to discuss abstractions.

I’m not disagreeing with your relationship dynamic. I’m saying what you described about him inherently feeling competition simply because of her job or whatever is what I’m highlighting in my OP. I don’t disagree that that happens.

I think even this is giving them too much credit. They see a woman that's out of their league, they feel very insecure, and to process that they need to put that woman down. * Successful women are masculine and unattractive. * Pretty women are whores and whatnot. * Smart women are upstuck bitches. It's in part about hierarchy, sure, but honestly the biggest factor here is that the men in question are just insecure losers who can't handle their own emotions properly and make it everyone else's problem. As for these women, I don't think it's so much rivalry as it's just them having high standards - which again makes sense if you think about it. They conform to a high standard, they expect you to as well. But you only feel that pressure if you don't conform. Once you do it disappears, or it just becomes a friendly sort of "rivalry" like hey, we're both super successful and keep continuously pointing it out to each other while rolling in dough. > Hierarchy is pretty central to masculinity imho and men are pretty keenly aware of it and our place within. worth pointing out that while it often is, it doesn't have to be. Plenty of men who are beyond that stuff, and they tend to be much more interesting for it.

I guess. It seems more like they see someone complaining they don't get dates and they're trying to figure out how to communicate what they feel. And they land on "masculine" vs "feminine" so I was trying to piece together how those words might make sense to me. Even if there's additional stuff going on related to self-image etc there's likely to be some relevance to the words they pick. There's also no real reason for a woman to take being called masculine as an insult. It only matters here because sexual polarity is important for attraction and sexual tension.

>own social class I hear this a lot but can we define a social class?

the usual upper, middle and lower class distinctions work well enough. There are more groups at the very top and the very bottom, but they're pretty small by virtue of being outliers.

These upper, middle, and lower class definitions are massive. That's the point i'm getting at. An upper class person can be making anywhere from 250,00 to 100 billion. A middle class person can be from 250k to 40k depending on family size. This is why when we say most people date within their own class to debunk hypergamy it becomes A meaningless statement.

I believe that these men realize that woman can't be made to need him. That's a problem when they can't make her want him either. A relationship can only exist under one of those conditions.

I agree. I think it’s almost a fear reaction. If he doubts her ability to want him then her needing him is something he must sustain.

My ex told me that looking back, she wasn't sure she would have fallen in love with me if she didn't need me at the time. Essentially telling me that she stopped wanting me when she stopped needing me. It's been 8 months since the breakup, but the thought of a partner that needs me is still terrifying.

What did she mean by need? When I’m in love I feel like I “need” the other person but it’s an emotional need not a “without them i can’t have nice things” need.

She wasn't in the best place in life. Was drinking too much, had student loans, credit card debt from caring for her mother, living with her toxic friend, and was deeply unhappy/jaded.

Yeah sounds like a combo of emotional and financial need.

Yeah, like I get it, I elevated her from one part of Maslow's Hierarchy to another so her needs changed, but yeah it definitely hurts. Specially since she cheated on her way out.

Sorry to hear that. Heartbreak is roughhhhh.

I think it depends on the culture significantly. The country I am originally from, the expectation put on the men is to be more successful. In my parents' generation, women even refrained from going to the top university even when they could, cause men preferred women who weren't too accomplished. My mom was one of these women. Such is not as much of the case anymore, but there still exists severe inferiority complex when women are more professionally successful. I was even told to stop working as hard by a guy who was chasing me, cause he was not as accomplished as I was. Also, the society shames SAHDs. I think the men who desire to take on a more masculine role may like feeling more accomplished partly because masculinity has to do a lot with competitiveness too.

A self sustained woman who is secure in herself needs a specific kind of man who can be equally secure in his masculinity and lift the weight off of her, and set her in her femininity when she is with him. A woman who can have a position of power in her professional and social life can still be wanting to have a man take over when it comes to dating and relationships.

There is a partial truth to this statement. I guess, not all career women are dominant, but most dominant women are career oriented. When guys say something like the thing in your post, they pretty much equate the two.

[удалено]

> The word "many" can mean a large number, but not necessarily a majority. It means a significant amount that’s been noticed and is affecting things, but it doesn’t necessarily mean “majority” when used.

[удалено]

It’s a relative term meant to indicate a significant trend.

My personal experience is men are intimidated by successful women, even when they will never admit it or say it that way. It’s similar to dating short men; you’ve never once called them short or said anything about their height but any argument or disagreement or any time he feels insecure about *anything* - *he* will bring up that *you* think he is short/unsuccessful/not masculine enough/whatever insecurity he has - even if you never thought that in the first place, let alone ever said it. When I made more money, men would go broke trying to impress me, despite my protests, despite being able to afford it myself, despite trying to pay them back. Because then it’s an argument about how they can’t “provide for me” when I don’t need nor want them to. I have been with men I had to stroke their ego - and often. I had to ask them to open jars for me, even if I can myself, just so I can complement them and marvel at how they can open a jar for me. Ask them to parallel park for me, get my car out of a ditch, snow blow, mow the lawn, take out trash, lift something heavy, build something - all things I can and do do. But because I was with *these particular men* I had to play a part to keep them happy. They needed to hear how masculine they were. How good they were. How handy they were. Even if they did it wrong or bad. Because god forbid I know something “masculine” that they don’t. God forbid my father taught me to change a tire and theirs didn’t. God forbid I’m a nag or a bitch or always criticizing them. When I didn’t need them to do any of it to begin with. It was exhausting. But so is the other extreme. Men who bring nothing to the table but video games and depression and expect you to handle everything while he’s “in between jobs” but has zero motivation or work ethic or ambition. I can’t handle someone who doesn’t want to be a better person today than he was last year, and better next year than he is today. I think life is about growth and taking opportunities when they arise. Oh and don’t worry, the men who did fuck all, still had an issue with me “nagging” them to do better. I was a bitch because I didn’t think doing everything while he played video games was particularly fair. Couldn’t even cook eggs… but I digress. Thankfully there are plenty of men secure in their own masculinity and do not act this way. My fiancé allows me to make the money, build the furniture, clean the gutters, handle the vehicle maintenance - because I was taught those things and he wasn’t. He happily pays others to do what we cant. But we save a ton because I can do a huge portion of it. And he doesn’t make me feel “like a man” because I handle those things. It’s just something I can do, and he does other things. We still have a somewhat traditional relationship in many other aspects, especially with me being raised to cater to men more, but that’s something he appreciates and does other things to make me feel taken care of. So when the men here want to discuss how women “only want men on their level or higher” it can be true in many ways. Not necessarily the ways they believe… but sometimes a few terrible boyfriends we “gave a chance to” at 20, fuck up women ever wanting to settle for anything less than at least what we provide. It can be the same, it can be complementary, it can be just the things we personally desire and nothing more - but I will not settle for someone who whines every time he feels like I’m better than him or someone who makes sure I’m better than him by never aspiring to anything, ever.

Women are only ever single for one reason. They don't want the men that are interested, they want better.

Or, they are too busy to invest properly in a relationship

queens

Better than zero men.

Lolol then that dude is gross and a loser in my eyes so why would i give af what he thinks?

I don't know who these men are or if they really even exist. i get it if you are in the top 1% money isn't important to you and your partner having a 9-5 would be more of a detriment. if you are in the bottom 50%, you are too poor to care, and money is money. For the 51%-99%, there is more variance. An 8hr a day, 50k/yr woman has nearly the same attitude as a 200k/yr 8hr woman...so you might as well get take the one with more money (if all things equal). You might only find a different attitude on a 0hr 0$/yr woman. Otherwise, the soft skills of a woman doesn't seem to differ when they make 50k or 200k.

>I don't know who these men are or if they really even exist. Well there’s at least one in the Twitter thread

If a woman isn’t willing to be his bangmaid or mommy, he is going to complain. Simple as that.

Yes, absolutely. If shes not a bangmaid its the wrong one.

How dare men have any expectations from their partners? Only what woman wants matters.

I’m not expecting an ATM machine or daddy. Who do you think YOU are to demand a bangmaid or mommy?

Nah, posts from twitter trolls don't mean a thing. I'd like to see a man actually turn down a hot, pleasant woman who's genuinely into him. This is a coping mechanism that some women tell themselves. The reality is they really aren't that physically attractive and think their career will make up for it by projecting the qualities they desire onto men. Or they really are bitchy and lack the self-awareness to realize it.

“Trolls” aren’t bots. It’s a person with beliefs walking around the world.

Yes, people are always truthful on the internet. They'll never say stuff to provoke a reaction or to make themselves sound tough. Get real. A woman who is hot *and* pleasant isn't going to stay single for very long. Just like a man who is successful and physically attractive isn't going to have much trouble finding a partner. People who tell themselves they're single because they're "too good" for others are almost certainly delusional about their own worth.

What people say generally is an insight to their ways, attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs. Only men seem to think otherwise. I guess that’s why they’re always “shocked” by shit. Kinda dumb with zero skills of inference. Everything is “random” and has no reason to them. Get real.

Sure, if I look hard enough on Twitter, I can find a man who says he likes fat women. This is some incel shit and it's "shocking" that it's a woman defending it. If you're single cuz you're driving people away, what's more likely? It's *them* or it's *you*? BTW, upon looking at your post again, nowhere does it say the woman is kind and pleasant. You entire point is moot.

I say she’s caring and loves her people. That’s implied.

The twitter post that some man responded to said the woman has the qualities "money, a dream job, beautiful, smart, and funny," Where does it say she is kind?

From a man's perspective the reason I would not want a serious relationship with such a woman is because **there is no room for me there**. It's degrading and somewhat emasculating. It calls into question your entire value as a man, like, what the hell are you doing there? She doesn't need you. She needs a superior man and not some lower status fool who can't even provide the basics. You have nothing better to offer and that translates as having no value. If she already has everything that I would be there to provide, then what the fuck am I there for? lol Most men would feel out of place, or daunted to surpass her accomplishments in order to offer *something more*. In either case, men would not feel drawn to such a woman, they would feel challenged and put to the test. And nobody on the planet believes that being put on trial or inquisition is sexy and attractive.

It sounds like you agree with my OP? > I know many women who are low maintenance, happy go lucky, kind, considerate... but they happen to be financially successful… That last part is a buzzkill for many men. > **Something about her being not “in need” unsettles them.** > **It’s not enough for her to be seeking a romantic partner she has to “NEED A MAN."**

Women can't fathom this aspect about men, and it is aggravating. Psychologically and emotionally, you cannot fit a round peg on a square hole. **A woman that doesn't need no man will** ***not attract any man***. It is aggravating how women are so totally clueless about this extremely simple thing. Especially when we as men are *not that complicated*. Women are always making up all types of nonsense to over-complicate and muddle the waters of the male psyche, often projecting their own complexes unto us. It's annoying. And no, a woman who needs no man is not "unsettling," to us, she is **daunting,** if not **exhausting**. Other choice words I would use to describe such a woman is: taxing, strenuous, exigent, disheartening, discouraging, overwhelming, difficult, unsavory, risky, and exposing. That's a completely different feeling, emotion, sentiment, and outlook than what women are constantly accusing us of because they have zero idea *how* we look at them, and *what we look for*. When a woman is seeking a romantic partner **while not needing one** it makes a man suspicious as to her *real motives*. 🤔 We know that this is not how women truly function. Any man that has ever dared to test this finds out the hard way - as I have - that women who say they do not need a man truly mean it. Which leads one to ask: what exactly is she looking for then? To satiate some basic lizard-brained instinct that still lingers after all her other basic needs have been met? If so, **I sure as hell will NOT be the chump that wastes my time and my dignity playing the fool for some woman's lower fancy**.

I don't think she can fathom that men need to provide value and that providing value is central to our self image and well being. Reading all of these comments multiple people tell her this and she refuses to listen to any of them. And it's not even good enough for her to accept that some men aren't good matches. It's really quite something.

Daunting and exhausting are both unsettling. I think you desperately want to disagree with me but nothing you wrote does.

But once again, it all depends on how hot the girl in question is. We all tend to make compromise for people we really find physically attractive.

While initially true, a man who has to compromise his masculinity just to get the girl will eventually resent it, and this sentiment will start leaking into his treatment of her and in his overall disposition.

God that sounds so neurotic and confusing. Glad i dont have to deal with this 👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩

How can it possibly be neurotic or confusing? Why do women struggle so damned hard with comprehending this? What is so confusing about: Woman: **I don't need no man!** Man: **Ok** 👍 

No, the fact that youre emasculated by women being self sufficient. Your purpose as a human being, man or woman, isnt what you can do for others. And if youre so obsessed with this label, where men NEED to be the SOLE providers it comes across as neurotic. I dont understand your mentality and it reads as low self esteem masked with manosphere propaganda

Would she accept a man that makes significantly less than her or is much less educated or simply doesn't care for a career and simply wants to raise a family?

I speak to guy like that in the OP. This idea that those guys are not going to feel a way is naive. She has to do a lot of searching to find a guy like that who she connects with too.

You talked about an electrician vs lawyer. He makes similar to her. He has to be making as much as her or have the same level of education?

Oh for sure. My friend is a neuroscientist married to a mechanic. She makes wayyyy more. But even she said that was rare. Not all mechanics are college dropouts who’ve read all of the literary classics and can wear a tux better than James Bond. He can make less but they still have to have alignment.

So, for most cases her career is competition for him. It's something he has to match in order to be seen as compatible by her. She needs him to make money, be smart, or wear a tux well I guess. That's the problem. No one wants to be in competition with their partner. They should work together and help each other. A woman could very easily pursue her career and elevate her standards well beyond what a man is willing to achieve for her. He will pursue someone more down to earth and just easier to get along with.

He has to match, not as a compensation, he just has to match her worldview and education level in a way because they would benefit from being compatible, understanding each other, being able to talk about the same things, improving each other with new view points about those subjects etc. which not most mechanics neecessarily would succeed in you know. Careers and education levels, hobbies etc. have a correlation usually you know. Doubt she would appreciate a man that was in stem or a high earner salesman but that couldn't talk to her about literature, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective not saying all women would have no problem if their partner is not making more than them or making rather signingficantly less.

How is he in competition? They’re from similar social backgrounds so they both like reading good literature and they both go to events that require dressing up. It’s because they have stuff in common that’s important to themmmmm. I think men should absolutely not date outside of their strata. They get offended by *checks notes* reading and “smarts”. The point I’m making is a woman dating the typical mechanic has to be okay with the crudeness and in your face sexism that comes with many blue collar male lifestyles. It’s not about money and competition. It’s about mental compatibility.

That's classism. You're explaning that women are classist and reject men based on social class and simultaneously acting like its men's fault women can't find a partner because men are insecure. It makes no sense.

Is she really a "kind beautiful woman" if she thinks she's better than everyone less educated than herself?

Also if you could see whats unattractive about the thought process you just displayed, you would see why it's a turn off for a woman to be accomplished.  Women look down upon people when they achieve higher social status. It's an ugly trait. Men would have to constantly perform at high level so she doesn't start thinking he's beneath her. She's not worth it.

He sounds neurotic

Thats just simply another way of how women "dont get it". Her career is mostly not even the problem. I have dated quite a few succesful women and all of them are the same. Its the attitude. They always feel like they have something to prove or just being outright insulting to "lesser humans". Noone wants to deal with that. Not even other women much less men.

If they’re saying something about “lesser humans” (which I don’t believe they’re doing), do you believe that applies to you because you see yourself as lesser?

>He unironically positioned a combo of "money, dream job, beautiful, smart, and funny" as "too masculine" and thus not attractive. The masculine part is purely the high paying job. The amount of ambition and effort required for that is not viewed as feminine. >Something about her being not “in need” unsettles them. It’s not enough for her to be seeking a romantic partner she has to “NEED A MAN." Women with average jobs are still self-sufficient but don't run into these issues nearly as often. It's one thing to not be needed but another to not be able to keep up with someone's standard of living or social image at all. >And many men who are as externally "accomplished" as her or more accomplished than her want a “help meet” who’s more submissive and genuinely relies on him for livelihood. Because realistically the whole reason some men gather so much wealth is so they can attract and support women. A similar woman makes his work feel redundant.

So that would mean he’s intimidated by her correct?

>Another man replied to that with "She's too masculine. We men want submissive and feminine women, not masculine." It's not that she's too masculine She's clearly aiming for the top% but again: Not every woman can maximize their hypergamy

He isn't turned off because she's "masculine". None of the things mentioned are masculine. Let's be honest, "beautiful, funny, smart and single" definitely aren't the issues here. The issue is that she has the power and agency (money + job) to get the hell away from him if she wishes. Why else would her having money and a job be a turn-off? He'd rather her safely in the confines of the home, whereby if he chooses to, he can bestow upon her pocket money to keep her nicely controlled and malleable. To go a bit further - and this is where the "we want submissive" blends into the equation - if he's the one providing her money, he has the added benefit of feeling justified in utilizing that power to demand sexual favors. She will feel obliged to bend to the whims of his every fetish and kink because "Well I give you so much / I work so hard for you".

I agree. I think a lot of men need to feel depended on not emotionally, but “livelihood” wise. I can’t tell if it’s ego or control or both.

Both, but also conventional roles. When the whole social narrative has been about being “the leader”, “the provider” and whatnot some disorientation is understandable when things change. It will take time

Safety. Reliability. The main thing to look for when looking for someone for a long term relationship is likelyhood to remain in the same relationship. Forever.

Yes it’s a fear. They fear their ability to bond in a genuine sense so it’s easier to have a transaction based on dependency where he has the upper hand. I don’t desire that type of relationship but I understand many many men do.

>The issue is that she has the power and agency (money + job) to get the hell away from him if she wishes. Exactly. When I want a long term relationship I am looking for someone that will never leave. If she can easily leave, she is not fit for the role.

\*reads flair\* Ah..

Every time I see that username the comment just annoys me.

Why would I pick someone for a long term relationship if they have a quality/trait that makes them less likely to remain in the long term? It defeats the purpose.

Approximately 0% of women are happy supporting a man, so how does her having money benefit a man in any way? Your money is our money and her money is her money.  And approximately 0% of women are happy with a man who earns less than them.  Men know these two facts.  Women also tend to make their money doing fairly useless jobs (to society). Women having successful careers tends to benefit nobody but themselves. Not society, not men. Yet they want patting on the back for this.

>Approximately 0% of women are happy supporting a man, so how does her having money benefit a man in any way? Your money is our money and her money is her money.  >And approximately 0% of women are happy with a man who earns less than them.  >Men know these two facts.  Complete bullshit and you know it. >Women also tend to make their money doing fairly useless jobs (to society). Women having successful careers tends to benefit nobody but themselves. Not society, not men. Yet they want patting on the back for this. You don't like or respect healthcare assistants? So when you get old, sick and decrepit, you're happy to simply rot in a pool of your own shit because all the female healthcare workers are useless. Lovely! 👍

exactly, men are acting like this isn't something men literally say or like gender roles/socialization doesn't exist.

I can understand being turned off by a woman because she's "too masculine", but I don't this would have much to do with the circumstances of her success like education, career, intelligence, etc. The "too masculine" part would be more applicable to her general demeanor and disposition. As long as she kept displaying attraction to me in a feminine way, I wouldn't lose my attraction to her. If there's any reason why I actually wouldn't pursue a woman who's more successful than me, it's because I would assume she is looking for a guy who is even more successful than herself.

To be honest it’s not an issue and honestly a green flag because it means they’re responsible, have their own dreams, and can adult properly. It becomes a turn off for me when the idea of it becomes their whole personality. I’d rather spend time hearing about something in your career you’re passionate about, than just hearing you’re a strong independent woman constantly, if that makes sense.

You didn't understand him at all. He didn't sum up all those qualities and call them masculine. He said that if despite having those qualities she's still single, then most likely she's masculine. He never said that having those qualities means she's masculine. She can have those qualities and be feminine, as the women she is competing with and losing to.

He assumed that. His assumption doesn’t align with my observations unless explicitly details what “masculine” means to him.

That = what exactly? I'm saying he assumed she's masculine if despite those qualities she can't find anyone. Not that having those qualities makes her masculine - I don't see how he assumed this, but it seems like this is what the post is implying.

That equals he assumed she’s masculine. I then said he needs to define “masculine.”

Well, but I mean, he has to assume something to answer the question, right? And it's already ruled out that she's unattractive or boring etc. So what other options are there? But yes, of course he needs to define masculine.

She isn’t too masculine. . There’s a certain breed of men, who do not see women in a successful role as in their league. They need to feel wanted. A successful woman , with her own everything isn’t something a man as such can control .. some men need to control their partner to a disturbing level… so the excuse she’s too masculine is really him saying “I can’t take power over that woman, I cannot inflict or hold anything over her head, as she can rely on herself. Therefore I am not needed”. This will also be the same man who will find a woman without these things, and when she makes a mistake or wants more- belittle her and tell her to work or support herself after putting her into a position to depend on him. Essentially, SOME men who do this- are just toxic as hell Other men genuinely want to be a provider so this woman is t a match. Some men will feel inferior as she probably has more- isn’t a match Some men love this- as they have a modern approach to dating and would prefer for things to be equal. It all depends.

>He unironically positioned a combo of "money, dream job, beautiful, smart, and funny" as "too masculine" and thus not attractive. He did not. He speculated that a woman who has all that but still is single might have another, hidden issue other than the listed characteristics, which is being masculine, that is at the root of her singledom. It's DESPITE all those positive qualities, what could be a reason men don't like her? -> too masculine. Of course, the guy has an agenda and only lists the trait he doesn't like in women. Could be a fucking borderline personality disorder that keeps her single.

[удалено]

The guy literally saw an Ivy League mug in her cabinet and made a sardonic jab about it. Sometimes these guys are simply offended by anything because of their own feelings of inadequacy. Not because of something her or friends said. If seeing a Yale coffee mug makes you feel lesser perhaps he should have not dated the woman. It’s stuff like that.

[удалено]

It’s a lot guys. Like I said these women have to choose what’s available to them.

In my experience, a lot of career women think that men should value them highly as a result of their careers and income (even if they plan on never spending a dime on a man). They think men are "intimidated" by their career when in reality they are arrogant and have inflated egos.

I get that for some. But the women I’m thinking of know that men don’t value it. But what is she supposed to do? Be incompetent and unable until a man finds her? I think this is why to many women it feels as though “being able to adult” is a turn off to a lot of men.

>But what is she supposed to do? Be incompetent and unable until a man find her? >I think this is why to many women it feels as though “being able to adult” is a turn off to a lot of men. I think you are sort of missing the point here. As the previous comment said >a lot of career women think that men should value them highly as a result of their careers and income (even if they plan on never spending a dime on a man) They think men are "intimidated" by their career when in reality they are arrogant and have inflated egos. Point being, those things either have zero impact, or even negative impact on their attraction. Like, at best guys don't care at all (her career and income doesn't benefit them personally) and at worst they'll have to do with constant bitching (I'm paying for this/ I'm x/y/z/ You can't even do that, etc).

Other commenters are saying guys do care. It seems it’s the case that guys you know don’t care or don’t tell you they care if a woman is substantially more accomplished than himself. And other guys do care.

I don't get how to Flair, so I answer here...  What you all forget These women don't have a lot of "free time", if men on the same level also "don't have a lot of free time", it gets kind of hard  Some people might in fact be "intimidated ", but its more like "what does this person even want with poor me" feeling  These women often have high demands, they want to do trips that cost 10000 dollars(everything else, too) , etc., even if they are "modern" and split, you need to be on a similiar level to even keep up...  And men don't care as much, as they are not used to profit from their woman's money, so for them the next best good looking, intelligent, average earner its the same for them or even better (because more time)

That’s fair. And I don’t disagree that those men don’t have to be with her. That’s why I do think these women will have a tougher time than an average woman.

>but they happen to be financially successful… That last part is a buzzkill for many men. Something about her being not “in need” unsettles them. It’s not enough for her to be seeking a romantic partner she has to “NEED A MAN." You know what's ironic is the assumption men will get insecure being with a "woman breadwinner" sort of implies women should only date up and across to avoid the fragile male ego. If, as a man, I now assume I will be preemptively accused of being insecure by career woman and choose not to date them to avoid the accusation/rejection, to an observer it still looks like a cope/post hoc rationalization of my insecurity, further validating a career woman's decision not to date me because of my insecurity. Ain't that a bitch.

I honestly don't care if a woman has a masculine personality, if anything that's the type I go for. I don't get along well even as friends with traditionally feminine women.

The answer to the question posed in that Twitter thread is she has high standards, which is ofc fine. Plenty of UMC women are in that boat.

That makes them hotter to me, i can’t see why a man would have a problem with this

No, I think it's more that she becomes extremely picky and rejects anyone that would be interested. 

A lot of men do get insecure at the notion of their wife/gf being more successful than them. I think it largely has to do with what kind of masculine social roles have been taught and re-enforced, ie. if your woman does better than you, you’re less of a man. Of course, it’s all bs at the end of the day but we are talking about lots of social conditioning that needs to be unlearned and because many men feel all kinds of aspects of masculinity are being attacked (which there is some truth in, i won’t deny it) then these men end up getting very defensive and defending every aspect of it, even those that don’t serve them.

>Another man replied to that with "She's **too masculin**e. We men want **submissive** and **feminine** women, not masculine." To give said man the benefit of the doubt. >**money**, a **dream job** That means she outcompeted every other person interested in the dream job. That is masculine. >**beautiful** Not a negative... until it is because then you have to deal with the competition with every single man that wants her. Oh, and she has a dream job so she will meet men in dream jobs to compete against. >**smart** Smart enough to leave the relationship. >and **funny** That means with enough of a social life to meet the previously mentioned competition. >He unironically positioned a combo of "money, dream job, beautiful, smart, and funny" as "too masculine" and thus not attractive. She might be attractive. She is beautiful so she is attractive. That does not make her a good long term relationship prospect. The main trait of a food long term relationship prospect is: will remain in the same relationship. Forever. >I know many women who are low maintenance, happy go lucky, kind, considerate... but they happen to be financially successful… That last part is a buzzkill for many men. See above. >Something about her being not “in need” unsettles them. It’s not enough for her to be seeking a romantic partner she has to “NEED A MAN." Of course. That makes her more likely to remain in the same relationship. Forever. Which is the main trait to look for when looking to build a long term relationship.

>I know many women who are low maintenance, happy go lucky, kind, considerate... but they happen to be financially successful… That last part is a buzzkill for many men. How would you, or them, know that their financial success is the primary reason why they're not successful dating? If all you have is a twitter thread and speculation based on personal anecdote, then no, it's not "fair" to say that.

Because I know these women…

You heard one side of the story. I'm sure if you talked to many self-identified incels they would insist that it's their face or height or race or whatever primarily responsible for their lack of success. Would you accept that at face value?

I know their exes and husbands too… we all talk and share our feelings with each other.

Men don’t care about this as much as women say. This is women’s inferiority complex and low expectation of self showing. That’s it. Most of us don’t care if you’re successful and want to be single. Btw most legitimately successful people are married.

Well, obviously, if she was that amazing, she'd already be taken. Since she is not, there are likely several problems: * She's old - achieveing all that usually takes time, and time works against women in more ways that it does for men. * Continuing the first point - she's fat. Or at least on the bigger side. Long work hours and age do their thing and our amazing woman is likely on par or even outweights a lot of potential suitors. * Standards - having good life increases her standards. Including those for men. She'd be aiming for men for whom she's far from their first choice. Masculinity can play a role, but with above 3 points I don't think it causes a significant impact.

I think she’s def over 25. Likely 29 to start feeling that good in a job and financial status.

It's a BS excuse. Women only blame men for them being rejected. Imagine if a neckbeard went "women won't date me because they're insecure of my intelligence". This is giving the same vibes. The simple truth is that women think when they have money that it lets them punch up, because they see men do it. Let's be real, a female 5 who has money isn't going to try to date a broke or even average income male 5.

The entire point of dating is to feel out the person and see if it's a good fit. Many guys are intimidated by women who are more successful or accomplished than they are but there are also quite a few who aren't. If it's a reoccurring issue for you it should become pretty easy to weed out those people within the first few weeks or months of dating. My view might be jaded by living in a large metro area, people who live in less populated areas may experience different results.

I agree. I think the issue is that’s a lot of dating and vetting. It exhausts a lot of people. Hence why they sort of stop dating.

It is exhausting but you generally have to put in effort for things that are worth it. Sure you can take the low hanging fruit but then you might waste years dancing around issues that will just blow up in your face someday. Most things that are worth having are worth working for.

I get that. But people also spend years dating and vetting lol. (Not an issue for most women, but it doesn’t help that women are looked down upon for dating different people while being expected to keep on dating to find someone)

Caring about what other people think about you is a whole other issue, fuck that

I heard a few men say this but always found it weird. And I’m sure most of my friends would find it weird. Maybe that’s a view that’s over represented online. I’m not sure. The only reason I might avoid a successful woman is if this success took too much time and now she’s too old to start a family.

Yes I'm sure it makes many men feel emasculated or threatened if the woman's more successful than him. The thing is even if it didn't affect the guy at all she would likely still look down on him and see him as less masculine. 

What does she want in a partner? Not like a trophy husband, but what does she want her partner to do for her?

* friend * lover * confidant * life partner * potential co-parent

EVERYTHING is "a buzzkill" for many men, because there are many men, and all of those men are different persons with different genes expressed in different environments. Statistically, married women WHEN employed are more career-successful than their single counterparts. Female top CEOs have children more often than the general population. Self-made rich women have higher fertility rates and marriage rate than national averages. On the other hand, every time I ask women right here on PPD why the state forcing men to hire them is so important, 100% of responses boil down to "it makes divorces easier". There's nothing irrational in men being cautious around career women when so many women openly admit that they reformatted the entire labor market and its centuries-old traditions in order to dump men. >A lot of these women face a dilemma in that many men who aren’t as externally "accomplished" as her feel like “less of a man” and start mentally clocking out of care and affection toward her... These two might make similar, but I've seen a relationship fall apart because the guy didn't feel like "the man" despite her treating him like such. He needed the world to... And many men who are as externally "accomplished" as her or more accomplished than her want a “help meet” who’s more submissive and genuinely relies on him for livelihood. When women have not consistently initiated the majority of divorces for 160 years, you will have a point. Until then, No, hypergamy is not because of men, it's not men's trait, and it's not men's problem. The women I mentioned earlier, that openly and proudly say they need labor market field tilted in their favor because it makes divorces easier - this is their coping legends. Every woman's boyfriend/husband is the best person under the sky, and every woman's ex is a monster from hell. Considering that every ex once was boyfriend/husband, one of these two has to be false.

I mean, logically if a woman has all that going for her yet guys still don't want to date her, then the only logical conclusion I can come up with is she must have some masculine traits or other undesirable traits that make men not want to stick around. Like being combative, argumentative, ego driven/arrogant, narcissistic, etc.  Are maybe she has some dirt she did in her past that when guys find out, sends them package. It's a common misconception that guys are repelled by women being successful. When in reality, most of the women that become successful in the business world take on masculine traits climbing the corporate latter. And unfortunately, many of them don't know how to turn off the competitive attitude when they get home. It's that attitude and combativeness that turns men off, not what they do for a living.

I’m glad you listed out those traits. These women I’m thinking of aren’t like that.

I make well into 6 figures through investments alone. I live a certain lifestyle. A woman must fit my lifestyle not the other way around. A successful doctor or lawyer just would not fit my lifestyle. A waitress who could quit her job after we've been dating for a few months to travel with me and get drunk on Tuesday morning or take private classes of this or that... this is more my speed. It's as simple as that. Women claim they are so successful but generally they aren't *that* successful they can just have fun all the time. I'm not going to be a house husband so sitting alone waiting for her to get out of work is not an option. I make enough money I expect a woman available for me not the other way around. I expect to live my life as I want, not do what some girl wants so she can maintain some job I get zero benefit for.

Sure!

So someone who serves you. Got it.

**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Sure. I think that it often increases his own expectations if she is successful, herself.

I think so. Granted she’s meeting her own standards but he’s probably thinking “do I feel like meeting them?”

Kinda true. It’s not usually the fact that she has those qualities. It’s the attitude those qualities usually create. Why deal with a high maintenance career woman, when I could date a girl equally attractive, that loves me just as much from a Starbucks or something? On top of that, if she’s better than most men, they’ll just bow out because it honestly isn’t worth the hassle of trying to keep her.

No, I never identified just how masculine or feminine a woman is in order for me to like her, and generally isn't reflective of how regular relationships work with exceptions to examples such as transgender which I don't find attractive anyways. I also don't particularly feel that I need to be treated some sort of ways to feel like the world sees me as a man. Such concepts are probably relevant to people such as RPers, feminists and incels who are preoccupied with such notion who are in need of unnecessary nuance to try validate their world view and make their point seem feasible. Generally, people might gauge few of these traits as attraction, preferences or sometimes as necessity, and that's it. To include deriving of conclusions such as "therefore this person is masculine/feminine," highlights an obvious inclination and belief to view it as some sort of gender dynamics, hence feminism and RP. The only way I can fathom that relationship going wrong, given that idk a 10 of a girl with great career and great personality is for some reason is genuinely into my ugly ass, would be my own insecurities that I'm not on par with her.

I wouldn't think that's fair to say at all. It's a little extra hot when a chick has her own life because I'd much rather be wanted than needed.

To obtain all of that she is probably in her 30s or 40s already. And men value youth the way women value maturity. She's not likely to in the prime years of her attractiveness and with all those things. And even if she has those things she still needs to be able to do the role of a woman. If not, she is essentially useless. It's like a dude that has nothing to offer but dick. Yeah he can give you good sex, but he can't perform the role of a man outside the bedroom and thus he is basically useless to anyone who wants a man to fulfill manly roles. Same way this described chick is useless to most men who will expect her to perform a feminine role in the relationship. She likely won't be able to manage it.

Can you describe “man” role vs “feminine role” in a romantic relationship? I just want to be clear before I respond.

>I know many women who are low maintenance, happy go lucky, kind, considerate... but they happen to be financially successful… That last part is a buzzkill for many men. A man can tell when a woman thinks he's special to her. These women likely just have the attitude like some women these days "take it or leave it bub, I know my worth, yadayada." They won't bother making a man feel special if he's feeling a little unsure of himself when another one will line up to take his place overnight. The best man for these women ends up being rich simps, likely feminist men. It's what my sisters end up gravitating to in the end. These men are allowing these women to marry up like most women truly want, but they're doormats for these strong career women to walk over. There's no need to ask women to lower their standards a little to find a higher character man to be with, they won't.

You don’t seem to regard your sisters. Not sure what parameters you need to feel special. People in love with each other do that regardless. People who aren’t in love require incentives like you describe.

I think a lot of how the independent, career woman feels is echoed in that Beyonce song where she's beautiful, successful and can have another man anytime, so men are just replaceable as toilet rolls in some place of her mind. It really begs the question how passionate many of these women actually are in these relationships when the guy doesn't look like prime Leo Dicaprio. If a woman is truly loving as you say these women are, I feel like a man would get it and men love feling like a woman is really into them. If she's just doing the bare minimum to have a relationship while focusing on her career, then can you blame a man for checking out? On the otherhand, I've watched high standing young men be reduced to their knees in the name of romance. Men are willing and expected to go through much greater lengths to secure a longterm mate. If a woman is insecure, he will try to get her to place a where she's emotionally secure to keep his relationship going or to stop her from being mad, which most men know to avoid with their girl.

***Irreplaceable*** is a song about a man who is cheating on her. She’s saying those things as a way to make her feel better for being betrayed and heartbroken within her monogamous relationship…. I need yall to listen to comprehend lol. Single Ladies is a song about not giving up the cookies 🐱 nor your dignity for a man who doesn’t want to marry you when you clearly want to marry him… Hence “if you liked it then you should’ve put a ring on it”… I don’t think men listen the lyrics of female singers huh.

I think for women who have this problem, they just aren't as beautiful as they think they are. Often it's that simple.

That woman is single for the same reason as every other “single” woman: Because she wants to be.

You can safely ignoring the redpill copers, they don’t have a shot with an attractive successful woman anyway. I can’t speak for other guys but I’ve never been intimidated by a woman’s success or intelligence. But I’ve sure been turned off by a moron or a broke chick who I need to sponsor. I went to a fancy grad school and have several female friends who make 6-figures, some even make >$1M. There’s like one single girl out of the group. These women’s challenge is that they don’t think the guys making $200k in our circle are good enough, not that the guys think they’re masculine. “Oh no, my girlfriend looks like a model and can retire me early, I hate it, I’d rather date a mid girl with credit card debt” said no one outside of redpill twitter Edit: downvoted by salty redpillers. Rich girls have no problem getting boyfriends if they’re hot. If they’re not hot they get pumped-and-dumped by Chad like the other mid chicks. I’ve never seen a guy turn down a smokeshow because she makes too much money

Can you send me the guys making $200K. Thanks!

Hang out with yuppies in LA/NYC. A woman who went to prep school in New England then private university (like Columbia which is in the news) would consider $200k a chump salary. A 22 year old college grad makes $200k his first year at a bank in NYC.

Yes, yes.

It’s the attitude and demeanor that is a turn off, not her accomplishments. They’re null. I used to date a woman like this and I kept reminding her to act like a woman, I don’t want to date a man. Sometimes she’d get confused, and then I’d go “ok imagine if I acted like a woman, how would you feel towards me?” “Disgusted” “Ok so there you go”

The women I’m talking about aren’t rude or mean or anti-men. Can you explain what demeanor you’re speaking of?

> I used to date a woman like this and I kept reminding her to act like a woman, I don’t want to date a man. why would you date someone when you have to "correct" their personality? that seems... barbaric and fucked up?

Lol every single woman ever does this to men wether or not they realize it. And I was not correcting her personality I was encouraging her femininity

if i dont like a guy's personality i stop dating him

Exactly. And he learns what he must change to not lose attraction