This is a comment by wellokaythen on the Comment of the Day: “I wondered why rejection never triggers the self doubt in my female friends as it does my male friends.”
wellokaythen said:
“Another explanation could be that nowadays women have more going on for them outside of relationships while (hetero) men are still heavily defined by their ‘success with women.’ A lot of books out there today saying that women don’t really need men in order to be happy (I agree), but not many books saying that men don’t need women. You would be accused of misogyny for suggesting such a thing, in fact.
“Sure, there’s still a lot of pressure for women to ‘find a man,’ and a lot of judgment about them if they don’t, but with men today there may be even more of one’s identity tied up in finding a mate. A woman without a date for the weekend is probably just too busy, too independent, or sick of men’s crap, while a man without a date for the weekend is a loser, has unrealistic fantasies about women, or is just fundamentally flawed somehow.
“I can’t help noticing that several messages here seem to equate being told ‘no’ with being ‘rejected.’ They’re not the same thing. Saying no by itself is just saying no. Interpreting it as a complete rejection of you as a person is the spin you’re putting on it. It’s the self-talk that you’re attaching to what she said. If she says, ‘no way, gross, you’re a homunculus,’ then yes, that’s a personal rejection. If she says she’s not interested, then that’s just saying no. Taking every polite decline as a personal rejection is a horrible way to go through life, and it may be sending unconscious messages to your prospective mates.”
Photo credit: Flickr / shermeee
About the Editors
There definitley is more promoting of the “independent woman” than the “indepenent man”.
Telling woman to do less and less to attract men while at the same time talkng down men who don’t do what it takes to attract woman.
Looking suspiciously at single men, especially if they say that they’re not looking to be in a relationship.
Refering to a man who isn’t married with kids like his counterpart decades ago as a “Man-Child”, even though he may have a job, be financally independent and have his own place.
Well, it’s because males aren’t females. I know it sounds stupid but that is what it is. We can’t treat each gender the same way because they are essentially different.
Though, I agree that, people make wrong assumptions or wrong expectations.
The last bit was great advice for both genders.
A great quote and so often true although thankfully this seems to be changing a little lately.
Its like how homosexual men were illegal but not homosexual women for quite some time. On the rejection side seems a lot of women dont like being told theyve been replaced with a toy due to the fact that overly ridiculous DV laws make one feel like they have a gun pointed at their head just being in their company. Pro tip- Try to get in before they get down to underwear or less they will be less annoyed.
Have fun men and other shamed beasts =)
… and they better work on it, or else they will be rejected.
I sooo love it when I post a comment in two parts (because no edit), and the first part gets caught in moderation while the second part, which doesn’t make sense without the first part, is shown immediately.
Overthinking social stereotypes. IF you want companionship, get out and meet people. No one size fits all. Take your time. Every case individual to situation. Don’t want to be used, don’t use. Avoid cheap relationships. Raise the bar. Get centered before you try to connect. Get what you give. Goes both ways.
As thoughtful as this comment is, IMO is it’s kind of barking up the wrong tree. IMO the sexist double standard of it being ok for women to not “need” men comes more from the traditional female role of dependency rather than from whether or not someone is a “loser” for being alone.
In other words, IMO USUALLY the gist behind telling women that they “don’t need a man” is the idea that they shouldn’t become dependent on men to make the rent for them, make decisions for them, lick their wounds for them, and etc. Since men are already expected to pay their own bills, lick their own wounds, and make their own decisions, MGTOW tends to come across as being more for the reason that “women are icky specimens that are dangerous to interact with”, rather than for the reason that “men should stand on their own two feet”.
This POV is usually backed up by the behavior of the MRA’s that espouse MGTOW. Unfortunately these guys tend to go on bitter rants over being “forced” to go their own way by all the scheming “feminist” gold-diggers who want to trick them into paying for the local alpha male’s bastard child. Y’know, because all women are like this, and uh, “feminist” gold-digger isn’t an oxymoron. >< Misogyny much?
I also think you underestimate the pressure that women feel to find a "good man". Yes, men tend to take rejection worse, and I agree that this has to do with society's toxic ideas of a man HAVING to be a ladies man. However, at least men don't have some ominous "biological clock" for society to be obsessed over.
Anyway, as a feminist, I can assure you that all the feminists I know don't remotely care about jerks going their own way. If anything, we view it as womanhood (and society) dodging a bullet!
I would add a twist to what you are saying.
You may be right that a large portion of MGTOW are embittered. But, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a point.
The more calm rational members of the MGTOW I have seen on youtube seem to be stating that: “until the family law (and sex assault) landscape stops being biased strongly in favor of females, it is too dangerous to engage in longterm relationships with women”.
I think there time would be better spent volunteering for an org like F&F or SAVE or something, but just labeling them as embittered and not asking why means a lot of female-caused male pain is going unexplored.
I can’t help noticing that several messages here seem to equate being told ‘no’ with being ‘rejected.’ They’re not the same thing. Saying no by itself is just saying no. Interpreting it as a complete rejection of you as a person is the spin you’re putting on it. It’s the self-talk that you’re attaching to what she said. If she says, ‘no way, gross, you’re a homunculus,’ then yes, that’s a personal rejection. If she says she’s not interested, then that’s just saying no.
I have to disagree with this a bit. When a woman says no she is sizing you up by some criteria that she would like for a guy to meet and determining that you don’t fit it. Now her reasons may range from something shallow to something reasonable but its a rejection nonetheless.
That being said it is worth keeping in mind that “I’m not seeing us as being compatible.” is not the same thing as “I’m you’re beneath me.” One is just her comparing what she sees in you to what she sees in herself and thinking there’s nothing there while the other is casting judgement about you are as person. The former is her thinking about you and her together while the other is just thinking about you alone.
But I do agree with your overall point. A woman not needing a man is freeing. A man not needing a woman is seen as a slight against women (no matter how badly some feminists think that is not the case).
Now if only something could be done about all those terribly jerkish women that hide their shallowness under the guise of freedom and choice and all that.
“But I do agree with your overall point. A woman not needing a man is freeing. A man not needing a woman is seen as a slight against women (no matter how badly some feminists think that is not the case).”
Actually, a woman not “needing” a man is seen as a slight as well. As proof I can offer up tons of male complaining about this topic.
Some men have overly romantic ideas of the word “need”. Or, at the crappy end of the spectrum, they end up being so insecure that they believe that the opposite gender will only want to be around them if they’re literally forced to be. (And yes, both of these apply big-time to some women as well).
I still think that you are missing my point that the word “need” is a troublesome, gendered word. Traditionally, men “needed” women to meet their needs for companionship and joy (and maybe children), while women “needed” men for survival itself. So I don’t think it’s fair to grumble that one is “freeing” while the other is not, because they’re not really the same thing. (But mostly, I think that using the word “need” rather than the word “desire” or “want” is troublesome. Just like how several other posters have said more eloquently than I have.
)
I could be wrong, and I’m always interested in hearing different points of view. The difference is obviously “sexist”, in the sense that it’s a difference between genders, and it’s unfair to men. If you disagree with me, then where, in depth, do you believe that this difference comes from?
“Now if only something could be done about all those terribly jerkish women that hide their shallowness under the guise of freedom and choice and all that.”
People are entitled to be shallow; both men and women. I don’t think we can really do anything about it without infringing on people’s rights to chose who they want to date (or not date). For example, if a man refuses to date any women that’s below a 10 with a DD cup, I can think he’s shallow, but that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice. If I refuse to date fat, balding men, then you can think that I’m shallow (and I’d actually agree), but that doesn’t mean that I should be forced to date bald, fat men.
Not to say that Misandry and misogyny shouldn’t be called out and confronted. What “shallow” things do you think that women should be called out for when they’re rejecting men?
I still think that you are missing my point that the word “need” is a troublesome, gendered word. Traditionally, men “needed” women to meet their needs for companionship and joy (and maybe children), while women “needed” men for survival itself. So I don’t think it’s fair to grumble that one is “freeing” while the other is not, because they’re not really the same thing.
Actually I there was a matter of men “needing” women for not just companionship but for matters of emotional health (and the joy and children you mention as well). So I think it is a fair “grumble”.
People are entitled to be shallow; both men and women.
Never said they couldn’t be shallow.
I don’t think we can really do anything about it without infringing on people’s rights to chose who they want to date (or not date). For example, if a man refuses to date any women that’s below a 10 with a DD cup, I can think he’s shallow, but that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice. If I refuse to date fat, balding men, then you can think that I’m shallow (and I’d actually agree), but that doesn’t mean that I should be forced to date bald, fat men.
In your scenarios the problem isn’t that that guy only goes with women that are 10s with DD cup size or that you refuse to date bald fat guys. The problem is when those personal choices get expressed as if they are the standard that everyone should meet in order to be considered attractive by anyone. So by all means you shouldn’t be forced to date bald fat guys that’s no problem. However if you were trying to objectively declare that bald fat guys are unattractive to the point of shaming them and insulting them (versus just rejecting them when one approaches you) that would be bad.
Not to say that Misandry and misogyny shouldn’t be called out and confronted. What “shallow” things do you think that women should be called out for when they’re rejecting men?
Well it’s not so much when they reject men but when they project their standards on to all men and make objective conclusions (not too different from when men do it to women).
When i’m single, everytime i hear a song from female singers about how they dont need a man ( like some songs from Beyonce, Destini’s Child, Pussycat Dolls, other female singers ), my heart breaks and sometimes i got teary eyers. Because i really love women and i need them, not sexually, but emotionally. Heck i always love my mother who is a woman. I’m independent, have friends, college degree, jobs, hobby, but i still need a woman in my life. I need love. And hearing from women how they dont need men always makes me sad, especially when i’m single. Thats why i prefer listen to male singers and bands, and instrumental jazz groups.
A person who truly feels they do not need others must live a sad existence. Humans by nature crave the connection you make with others as a basic tenet of what makes us happy in life.
Using the word “need” conjures up thoughts that a person is incapable of living an independent life, which does not give justice to the true meaning of the word. Men and women don’t “need” each other to survive individually. I can live day to day without a woman in my life and could do so for the next 50 years if that’s what I wanted. But I know that life is so much better when shared, so I find myself driven to enjoy sharing my life with someone else. My preference is a woman. I need a woman in my life in order to be as happy as I want to be. I can find happiness without her, but I know the potential enjoyment of life is much greater when she is with me, so I desire that, I need that. As with anything there is risk in pursuit of that reward, and at any given moment she could leave me, or find someone else. I could do the same. But to shun the chance of real satisfaction in life for fear of short term pain seems to me an exercise of living destined for regret.
I agree with Jon D, but only up to a point. I would state it a little differently. You shouldn’t let fear of rejection stand in the way of reaching out to other people, IF that is what you want.
“A person who truly feels they do not need others must live a sad existence. Humans by nature crave the connection you make with others as a basic tenet of what makes us happy in life.”
This is true in a very general sense, I suppose. But, there is a WIDE spectrum when it comes to how much social connection any particular individual needs. Maybe no one is absolutely independent of all other people, but some come pretty close and are in fact quite happy. Saying someone “must” feel a certain way suggests some degree of speculation. How will you know until you tried it? We are all wired a little differently. Just because you crave something doesn’t mean someone else does.
“But to shun the chance of real satisfaction in life for fear of short term pain seems to me an exercise of living destined for regret.”
I totally agree, but I might take this wisdom to a very different conclusion. Don’t miss out on a chance of real satisfaction by being afraid to be alone. That pain of feeling alone may just be a small price to pay for being an authentic person. And, besides, regret is not the end of the world, either. Don’t live your life in fear of future regret.
I think that a more palatable word rather than need is to desire or want someone in their life. Is that so bad? I think that is very healthy. A person who needs someone in their life for their existence often creates a sense of “neediness”. This is linked to dependency, which is unhealthy. In those cases, people make decisions based on someone else’s needs and desires, not their own. Most people prefer, desire, or want someone in their life to share life’s experiences – both good and bad. We do better in so many ways and on so many levels when life is shared with another. Using either extreme – “I don’t need a man/woman”, or “I need a man/woman” are unhealthy. In as much as being totally dependent or independent is unhealthy. A healthier approach is having an interdependent relationship – taking responsibilities for your issues, not relinquishing your identity, lacking in co-dependency, a me, you, and us to the relationship, have healthy arguments, effective communication, though for many this is difficult to accomplish.
“Rejected” is a feeling. It’s an interpretation. Rejection is something perceived, much more than it is something that is done to you. No one can make you feel rejected without your consent. Yes, it can be a very powerful feeling. Yes, it can be incredibly painful, even maddening. It is a real, deep, honest, sincere feeling and you have every right to feel it. At the same time, it is a feeling mostly created inside yourself, not simply something imported from outside.
I won’t be so insensitive as to say “get over it.” I’ll just say that if you ever get over the feeling, no one can get you over it but you.
Everyone is entitled to bring into dating whatever criteria one wants. If someone’s criteria seems overly superficial to you, then clearly that person would not be a good match anyway. Why continue to dwell on someone who didn’t want to be with you? Besides, being superficial supposedly hurts the shallow person the most anyway. Someone who is “too shallow” or unrealistic will just have a life of constant disappointment, right?
As for the “needing each other” thing, I think that’s too often overstated or treated in an unhealthy way. If you feel like you need someone else in order to be completed as a person, then that’s just not healthy. Worse, it is a recipe for disaster. It is terribly impractical over the long term to give someone else an impossible job like that. If you need to be needed, that can go too far, as well.
I actually prefer to be wanted than needed. For me, feeling needed often transforms into feeling smothered or ensnared, and being needed feels less special than being wanted. I much prefer to be desired than needed, so I don’t mind at all when women say that men are not necessary. (I happen to think no one is actually “necessary,” so what’s the big deal? Women aren’t and children aren’t, so who cares?)
Not having romantic companionship is not the end of the world, no matter what the Hallmark channel might lead you to believe. Or, if it is the end of the world for you, it’s because you’ve invested so much that it feels like the end of the world. Much of this “being alone is the worst thing” sentiment is just the usual mindless extravert propaganda. It is entirely possible to be by yourself and not feel crushing loneliness.
The dating world may be the worst possible place to look for personal validation. If your sense of worth or acceptance is highly dependent on your success on the singles scene, then I strongly recommend diversifying your investments. You have to have something else going on in your life. Otherwise, you are just setting yourself up for emotional martyrdom. (Of course, if you’re one of those people who loves being a martyr, then keep it up. Some people actually score their own Self-righteousness Points from the feeling of rejection.)
“Rejected” is a feeling. It’s an interpretation. Rejection is something perceived, much more than it is something that is done to you. No one can make you feel rejected without your consent. Yes, it can be a very powerful feeling. Yes, it can be incredibly painful, even maddening. It is a real, deep, honest, sincere feeling and you have every right to feel it. At the same time, it is a feeling mostly created inside yourself, not simply something imported from outside.
I won’t be so insensitive as to say “get over it.” I’ll just say that if you ever get over the feeling, no one can get you over it but you.
I say the rejection is the action and the way you take it, for good ill, personal, or however intense is something else.
But I do agree with what you are saying overall if we aren’t calling it the same thing.
Big Danny – I still do not see why they want to keep calling this “rejection” . Since more and nore guys have decided not to even approach women, it has to involve something much, much deeper.
Maybe guys just do not want to play a game that is so lopsided. Why does it have to be that walking up to a young lady to begin a friendly conversation has to be something that you do by going outside of your comfor zone?
Big Danny – I still do not see why they want to keep calling this “rejection” . Since more and more guys have decided not to even approach women, it has to involve something much, much deeper.
Maybe guys just do not want to play a game that is so lopsided. Why does it have to be that walking up to a young lady to begin a friendly conversation has to be something that you do by going outside of your comfor zone?