Is that a fat woman gets to see a short guy as "equivalent" a form of sexual affirmative action?

[Senegoid]

Whoa! Stop the presses! Waitaminnitwaitaminnitwaitaminnit! Having thunk a bit about the above few posts for several hours, it occurs to me to think we’re getting at each other’s throats over some miscommunications, having to do with differing interpretations of what certain words mean.

(ETA: Just noticed Merneith’s post just above, after posting this. Not sure if that was there before, and I haven’t read it yet, so sorry if there’s cross-talking happening.)

Forget “entitlement” for the moment. We’ll get back to that one.

Forget “bitterness == entitlement” (which, as far as I can tell, is such a non sequitur it’s not even wrong.)

Look at the words “expect” and the related “expectations”.

Nice Guys™ are routinely accused of “entitlement”, which I will argue is incorrect and a loathsome vicious misandrist slander. What they are actually guilty of is “expectation”, properly defined, which isn’t at all equal to “entitlement”

“EXPECT” has two distinct meanings:

(1) Something you think will certainly happen: With Brexit, I expect financial turmoil in world markets. I expect Hillary will be elected. If you toss a coin 100 times, you can expect roughly 50% heads and 50% tails.

(2) Something you think ought to happen, or that you demand: The teacher says “I expect every one of you will have your 12-page essays done by tomorrow.” I expect to get paid on time and in full. And your landlord expects the rent by the first of the month.

Two very different kinds of expect, and two very different kinds of expectation.

Clueless males who can’t get dates have been promised ad infinitum that something will just click someday. I quoted kunilou earlier, here is part of it again:

@kunilou

Assuming they’re actually nice and not “Nice Guys” things will click for them eventually.

Every last one of the Clueless Class, males and I suppose females too, have heard variations on that a hundred thousand times. Did you see that recent thread about the possibility of throwing dice and getting box-cars infinitely? Well, some guys try to work the dating game and throw snake-eyes infinitely, and they start to wonder: “This can’t be just random chance, can it? There’s something wrong here. Is it me?” And their so-called friends repeat the lie: Oh, no, no, you’re a really nice guy, somebody just right for you will be along Real Soon Now". Everyone has been told that, or variations, over and over, even on this board, and it is a Big Lie.

Well, anyway, that gets the expectations (def. 1, not def. 2) up. Nobody, I don’t think, gets to thinking “Wow, all the females must and will pow-wow to decide which of them has to shag with me”. I don’t believe for a minute that that is the predominant thinking. They DO get to thinking, “Wow, if I can just chat up 100 females, and get into a good conversation with maybe 20 of those, and exchange phone numbers with maybe 5 of those and get dates with them, something’s bound to click. It’s been promised to me 100 times that it just works that way! I EXPECT (def. 1) that I’ll get a girlfriend out of this yet!” And then when that doesn’t happen, for 40 years in a row, at some time they will realize: I’ve been lied to, even by all my so-called friends.

But the misandrists translate that to: “I EXPECT (def. 2, that is, demand) that all the females must and will pow-wow and choose one among themselves for me”. And that’s where the false accusation of “entitlement” must be coming from. It’s a lie, an insult, a slander, and a vilification that males are so routinely accused of this, and it’s just plain wrong. It’s the wrong interpretation of “expectation”.

Where the idea that “bitterness == entitlement” comes from, I still can’t imagine.

Now, there’s the question: Can an actually nice guy, however clueless, actually realistically expect (def. 1) that he will, in fact, ever meet just the right person and something will click? Is it a virtual certainty, just as a hundred throws of the dice can’t realistically come up snake-eyes every time? OR, if Mr. Clueless is really that hopeless a basket case, does it conclusively PROVE that there is just something wrong with him (i.e., that he’s not the alleged “nice guy”, but a jerk)?

The undercurrent in all these kinds of threads is that Mr. Clueless must necessarily actually be a jerk, and must necessarily always have been a jerk. Yet Mr. Clueless, now proven a jerk, spends his entire adult life hearing the anodyne lies from his so-called friends about what a nice guy he is and how something will click any day Real Soon Now.

Or, is it really true that there just aren’t many females who will give the time of day to a “nice guy”. (One common argument is that such guys are just too bland.) The very suggestion is utterly forbidden. No matter though, it still remains de rigeur to say, instead, that The Great Unwashed Clueless who can never get laid (remember, that’s a proxy for “can never get a relationship going”) must be “entitled jerks”. That’s misandrist victim-blaming every bit as much as all the misogynist victim-blaming (which is also real) that gets thrown around.

I may be banned by tomorrow for writing this post. C’est la mort. (ETA: At least I use paragraph breaks when I write. Give me credit for at least that, okay?)

[Velocity]

@iiandyiiii

I know they’re hurting for affection, intimacy, etc. But they only have themselves to blame, and yes, I blame them – this is an entirely fixable problem for 99% of lonely short men, and 99% of lonely overweight men, etc. Until they figure out that the problem is themselves (and not their height or weight), and not others, or society in general, then they will never have a chance of success.

I have to disagree with this on a few points:

1. As mentioned before, there are indeed times when someone is rejected on the basis of height, weight, or physical appearance - I would argue far more than merely 1% (since you said this is fixable for 99%). We can’t pretend that that isn’t the case. While society has gradually been moving away from the unhealthy “physical appearance is everything” attitude, we are far from “there” yet.

2. While it’s true that many short men are bitter, that doesn’t change the fact that this is a twofold issue. Let’s use a non-romance related analogy: Suppose that someone has a severely disfigured face, and is shunned by society as a result. Such a person would probably become very bitter and misanthropic as a result, which would only make society shun them all the more. But it would be inaccurate to tell them, “You are being shunned only because of your bad attitude.” They would be getting shunned for both their appearance and attitude - and furthermore, their appearance was the triggering cause of their attitude.

3. Within dating and relationships, there’s often this “pull-yourself-up-by-your-boostraps” right-wing conservative notion that “People rise and fall on the basis of their behavioral merits” - i.e., if a person is being rejected, it must be because of something that is 1) fixable and 2) their fault. This is the same attitude used to condemn people in poverty, for instance; if you are in poverty it must be because it’s your fault or you have a bad attitude that is not conducive to success. Some people will be stuck in poverty through no fault of their own, and some people will never find dating/relationship success through no fault of their own. I think the “blame these people for their lack of success” attitude doesn’t help.
   Lest someone claim that I am arguing only for men in this post, what I said applies equally to both genders. People tend to respond to negative reinforcement just as much as positive reinforcement. A woman who has no relationship success is just as likely to suffer loss of confidence as a man who has no relationship success. It’s a vicious cycle, and society is often helping to worsen this cycle rather than improve things.

[iiandyiiii]

@Senegoid

Or, is it really true that there just aren’t many females who will give the time of day to a “nice guy”. (One common argument is that such guys are just too bland.) The very suggestion is utterly forbidden.

It’s not forbidden, but it is bullshit, at least for those guys not horribly disfigured or morbidly obese (and sometimes not even then).

[Acsenray]

There are plenty of nice guys, short guys, ugly guys, and fat guys who have companionship.

There are also plenty of non-misogynist, non-bitter guys who are lonely.

There are also plenty of horrible misogynists who have all the companionship they want.

Life is a crap shoot. It doesn’t owe you companionship. It certainly doesn’t owe you a partner with a minimum standard of hotness.

Misogynist, bitter guys can’t use being lonely as an excuse for their misogyny and bitterness. How you deal with the hand you’re dealt is a matter of character.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

I have to disagree with this on a few points:

1. As mentioned before, there are indeed times when someone is rejected on the basis of height, weight, or physical appearance - I would argue far more than merely 1% (since you said this is fixable for 99%). We can’t pretend that that isn’t the case. While society has gradually been moving away from the unhealthy “physical appearance is everything” attitude, we are far from “there” yet.

2. While it’s true that many short men are bitter, that doesn’t change the fact that this is a twofold issue. Let’s use a non-romance related analogy: Suppose that someone has a severely disfigured face, and is shunned by society as a result. Such a person would probably become very bitter and misanthropic as a result, which would only make society shun them all the more. But it would be inaccurate to tell them, “You are being shunned only because of your bad attitude.” They would be getting shunned for both their appearance and attitude - and furthermore, their appearance was the triggering cause of their attitude.

3. Within dating and relationships, there’s often this “pull-yourself-up-by-your-boostraps” right-wing conservative notion that “People rise and fall on the basis of their behavioral merits” - i.e., if a person is being rejected, it must be because of something that is 1) fixable and 2) their fault. This is the same attitude used to condemn people in poverty, for instance; if you are in poverty it must be because it’s your fault or you have a bad attitude that is not conducive to success. Some people will be stuck in poverty through no fault of their own, and some people will never find dating/relationship success through no fault of their own. I think the “blame these people for their lack of success” attitude doesn’t help.
   Lest someone claim that I am arguing only for men in this post, what I said applies equally to both genders. People tend to respond to negative reinforcement just as much as positive reinforcement. A woman who has no relationship success is just as likely to suffer loss of confidence as a man who has no relationship success. It’s a vicious cycle, and society is often helping to worsen this cycle rather than improve things.

1. I’m not talking about a single instance of rejection - yes, that can definitely be from height, or weight, or race, or whatever. But for years and years of loneliness, what I’ve said is absolutely true. If someone has tried hard for years and years, and failed, and isn’t horribly disfigured or morbidly obese, then the problem lies with them: either their expectations are entirely out of whack, or their personality is shit.

2. Being short is different than a horrible disfigurement. But they don’t automatically become bitter.

3. There’s no other way to characterize it. People can’t be forced into attraction. But this isn’t that bad, because almost everyone will have some success if their expectations are realistic, and they practice good hygiene, and they act with decency and respect. If you think that girls don’t like nice guys, and you’ve tried it for years with no success, then here’s a newsflash: you aren’t a nice guy. The sooner you (not you personally) recognize this, the sooner you can try to change your behavior and actually be a nice guy.

[Corry_El]

@Velocity

3. Within dating and relationships, there’s often this “pull-yourself-up-by-your-boostraps” right-wing conservative notion that “People rise and fall on the basis of their behavioral merits” - i.e., if a person is being rejected, it must be because of something that is 1) fixable and 2) their fault. This is the same attitude used to condemn people in poverty, for instance; if you are in poverty it must be because it’s your fault or you have a bad attitude that is not conducive to success. Some people will be stuck in poverty through no fault of their own, and some people will never find dating/relationship success through no fault of their own. I think the “blame these people for their lack of success” attitude doesn’t help.

The strawman stereotype of conservatives by liberals is that they are evil and judgmental, always blaming people for what’s not their fault. Human reality is that people have to do things for themselves mainly. Even the very likely (given this forum’s general tone) left leaning majority on this thread seem to see the basic truth in that when it comes to romantic relationships.

Of course the analogy, which you not I are bringing up, is imperfect. There is no literal romantic equivalent to the need for basic food, shelter, medicine etc. For those who can’t fix their romantic problems, tough: that’s reality. For those who can’t survive, that’s not a viable answer, and not the actual conservative answer. The debate is the relative weightings given to private charitable obligation vs forcing others to help (especially where group A votes to force group B to help group C), and moreover what ‘basic’ actually means.

But back to where the analogy does hold, a given person is similarly misguided IMO to view their lack of romantic or economic fulfillment as anyone’s priority issue but their own.