You're viewing a single thread.
It could just as easily be framed that women are raised and socialized to have unrealistic expectations for a partner.
I've seen guys who had no business even being in human society getting dates. Not sure "Women expect too much of men" is the issue here.
Both can be true at the same time, because, you know, there are a lot of very different people.
There's no one size fits all.
Like, seven billion of them. Assuming half the world is below average of your expectation of things, that's 3.5 billion people.
Women do most of the raising of children. Is it more likely that women raise their boys in a way they know will make them undesirable as an adult, or is it more likely that they push their daughters to do better and unintentionally raise their standards too high?
Standards of toxic masculinity are very often upheld by women as much as men. Growing up, one is told "Boys don't cry" by mothers as well as fathers, and then mothers wonder why their husbands are emotionally closed off.
Society is broken. Less broken than it used to be, maybe, but still broken.
i think its more that we focus more on women currently than we do men, and have been for at least 50 years. It was less of a problem due to the way the older social dynamic went, but as that's shifted int he last 20 years, it's gotten worse and worse over time, and now we have people like andrew tate who are the vultures of this problem.
I once asked my male partner to wipe down the bathroom counter because my grandparents were coming over. He did a bad job. I got upset about it. He said my expectations were too high. He had left a dead bug on the counter.
We absolutely do not have too high of expectations.
Hey, don't blame us. YOU dated him.
So one person reflects onto all of us?
He did a bad job.
Sounds like his parents did a bad job at raising him.
You should probably align with him on what "clean" means. It probably means "cleaner" to him, whereas you meant "nigh impeccable" - your definition isn't bad; there's just a mismatch between both your understanding.
….theres a dead bug on the counter and you call this nigh impeccable?
I’m never eating dinner at your house
No, I called her standard nigh impeccable, which should be the default. Having a dead bug is not "nigh impeccable".
Which part of my previous comment caused the confusion? Because now I'm confused on why people misunderstand my comment.
As if your misandrist ass who nitpicks about imperfections would ever be invited to any dinner lol.
Don't be abusive or sexist, damn that's a high bar to cross.
when you don't raise men such that they don't do this, it generally does become a high bar to cross.
I remember someone writing that the bar for men to be "good men" is in hell. That always stuck with me.
The bar to be a good partner is different from the bar to be a good person/man though.
I dislike the conflation between the two because it implies being unable to have a partner implies being a bad person.
Take a hypothetical man with severe mental impairments necessitating 24/7 care: Is it impossible for him to be a good man? Yes, that is a more extreme example but it just goes to show that there is a difference between the two. Being a good partner requires different skills than "just" being a good man.
As unrealistic as 'be better than a wild bear'.
It's funny. I went to the zoo the other day and I didn't see any women jumping into the bear enclosure.
in my defense, bears can't speak so.