What Men Want to Say to Women, But Don’t
Next week, I will (hopefully) be interviewing Dr. Helen Smith about her book, His Side: Men Speak Out on Dating, Marriage, and Life in America. In preparation for the interview, I read her book (she does great work, and I had already pre-ordered the book before we discussed an interview), and one thing I noticed was how much of her book revolves around men’s thoughts about women and dating. Thoughts that are familiar to most men, but that they usually wouldn’t say to a woman.
I’ve interviewed Helen Smith before, and I’ve also interviewed people like famous men’s rights activist Warren Farrell, as well as “The Godfather of the Red Pill,” Rollo Tomassi. They’re all smart people, and if you pay attention to what you see on places like X, you might think men’s rights activists, Red Pill philosophy, or even (ugh) Andrew Tate acolytes represent the opinions of the majority of men.
However, in the real world, I don’t find that to be true at all, although as you’ll see as you read this, their popularity in some quarters is easy to understand. While men often talk freely amongst each other, the kind of things you’re about to read here are things that usually don’t get shared with women for obvious reasons. Not all of these things represent my opinion, but I think every man who reads this will have heard these sentiments spoken before. Every woman? Maybe not.
First off, in my experience, very few men I run into seem to look down on or dislike women. I just don’t run into a lot of guys that you could fairly call “misogynists,” although ironically, the last guy I met who I think could be shoehorned into that category was tall, good-looking, and seemed to have zero problems getting dates.
Of course, a lot of men would point to that and say, “That’s just it. Most women have stopped caring about the things that matter most.”
They believe characteristics like wanting to provide for and take care of a woman, being a good guy, being a good father, being kind, funny, doing the right thing, and being willing to commit for a lifetime are treated like they’re so low value that they’re practically meaningless to most women unless they come attached to the things women put a high value on like extreme good looks, height, having large amounts of money, and status. They think most women would prefer to get pumped and dumped by a 6’4” male model than meet a moderately attractive, stable, good guy with similar values, they could potentially marry.
This has turned dating into a long, hard, brutal slog for a lot of men. They flirt and get nowhere. They send hundreds of likes out on dating sites, get at most a handful of responses, most of those women stop responding after 2 or 3 messages in, and they’re lucky to even get a date out of it. To them, this feels like what’s going on:
This is great if you’re an extremely attractive man who wants unlimited sexual options, because you will be able to get laid until your heart’s content with minimal effort, but an enormous number of men now feel like they’re practically locked out of dating the sort of women they would have probably ended up married to 2 or 3 generations ago.
So, what do people do when they want something badly and can’t have it? In this case, usually 1 of 3 things happens:
1) They try to improve themselves to get it, which may or may not work.
2) They latch on to a poor substitute for it.
3) They convince themselves they actually don’t want it or even hate it, so it will sting less.
You can see this all over our society. What’s Andrew Tate and the Red Pill philosophy? #1 with maybe a touch of #3 thrown in. What are incels? #3. What are simps who give money to OnlyFans women or porn addicts? #2.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of men, this whole thing seems to be trending even further in the wrong direction. This tweet helps explain what I mean by that:
I have no idea who “Raq” is, and certainly, she’s not some spokesperson for women, but her attitude does seem to be pretty common.
As a starting point, she considers going to school and building a career to be “leveling up,” and in her eyes, I’m sure it is, but most men don’t care about that. Men like feminine women, not female bosses. They like women who want to take care of them, not women who are good at managing a workforce. They like women who have time for them, not women who spend 70 hours per week in the office. That doesn’t mean women shouldn’t do these things or pursue their own interests, but if they’re doing them because they think a man will consider it “leveling up,” they are way, way off track.
For example, a lot of people right now are talking about Tobey Maguire dating a 20-year-old, which fits in perfectly with what she’s saying about successful and attractive men dating young women:
I can’t speak for Tobey Maguire, but I’m guessing he isn’t dating her because he “resents successful women.” He probably just doesn’t care whether she has a master’s degree or has risen three rungs up the ladder of the hierarchy of some corporation. Like most men, it’s irrelevant to him. Meanwhile, she’s young, pretty, not jaded, doesn’t have kids, doesn’t have 11 failed relationships making her bitter, and she probably thinks he’s got life all figured out, so she’s content to follow his lead. From a man’s perspective, she’s “leveled up” ten times higher than some 32-year-old female VP who makes $150k per year.
From there, “Raq” goes on to say that there are “so few good men left,” but whose fault is that really? Most men would agree that there are more effeminate men, unambitious video game addicts, and mediocre guys who are content to sleep on their parents couch than there used to be, but what about the fact that there are legions of guys out there who don’t fit that definition at all, but who are getting nowhere with the same sort of women they would have been marrying 50 years ago?
Some of it, you can undoubtedly pin on the fact that women are now getting more than 60% of college degrees and typically don’t want to marry a man with less education than they have. Similarly, you could also point to the fact that women are more successful in their careers today than ever before, but don’t like to marry men who make less money than they do. But is that the fault of men or women?
For example, if you decide to try to become a champion bodybuilder AND a champion marathoner, you’re going to have problems because the 40 pounds of muscle you add to compete in bodybuilding is going to work against you when you run a marathon. That is your choice, and it comes with consequences.
If you’re a woman who spends the first 12 years of her adult life in school and building her career, then gets serious about dating and finding a relationship, you’re at a huge practical disadvantage compared to a 20-year-old woman who is also interested in a relationship. Whether you think it’s good or bad, men didn’t do that to you. You made a choice about which path was more important to you, and it has ramifications.
Speaking of ramifications, what happens if a man gets married and it doesn’t work out? His fault, her fault, nobody’s fault, he knows he’s going to be the one getting screwed. Divorce court is rigged against him, top-to-bottom, and in favor of his soon-to-be ex-wife. Pretty much every man has seen some guy they know get skinned alive in court by his vindictive, shrewish ex-wife. A divorce is usually hard on everyone, but the court system has created a far higher level of risk for men who get married than women.
Men have noticed there are a lot of double standards like that these days. Women are getting 60% of the college degrees, but the real tragedy is supposedly that they don’t dominate STEM the way they now do so many other fields. Many women want the same pay as men, but without putting in the same hours, doing the same tough jobs, or performing as well.
If a man and a woman both get drunk and sleep together, the man is potentially a “rapist,” while a woman is treated like a child who can’t be held responsible for her actions. It’s the same thing with environmental sexual harassment suits. Apparently, women can handle anything men can, except seeing a bikini calendar on a wall or hearing an off-color joke.
We constantly see women putting men down in the public square, but it’s often considered out-of-bounds for men to level the mildest public criticism at women or even talk about what they prefer in a woman they want to date or marry.
Are women delicate little flowers who need protection from the harsh world or are they just as capable as a man, if not moreso? All too often, it seems like it’s, “you go, girl,” or “you poor dear, women shouldn’t be expected to deal with that,” solely depending on what benefits a woman more in any given situation.
Because of this, most men I know don’t buy into the idea that women are victims or are at some kind of societal disadvantage. If anything, they see women as holding most of the cards and oftentimes, playing life on easy mode.
I mean, what else do you call being handed things just because you’re pretty, getting hundreds of likes on every attractive picture, and being offered endless sympathy every time you have a problem? The general attitude when men have a problem is, “Don’t be a b*tch! Figure it out and stop whining.” When women have an issue, it’s, “Oh no! Are you okay? It’s so unfair that this happened to you! How can we help?” It’s hard to tell men who see that day-in-and-day-out that they’re somehow at an advantage, while the people who have endless advocates, white knights, and helpers looking for any excuse to enable them are really the ones being oppressed somehow.
You know the saddest thing about all of this? Men privately have lots of complaints and “I wish it were different,” comments about women, but guess what? They still seem to generally like women much better as a group than women seem to like men. That’s tragic because men and women are two halves of a whole that do much better together than we do apart.
Also see:
Telling Men’s Side of the Story
A big part of the problem is that women want too much from men these days. I don't mean expecting him to be employed and not abusive, I mean this, which I found online somewhere:
"It’s often impossible to navigate her mile-long list of contradictory requirements.
You need to be strong & stable but only when appropriate, and not too much or you’re a soulless rock, but you also need to be vulnerable & emotional - but similarly, only when appropriate and not too much, otherwise you’re not worthy of respect. You need to be sensitive, but only when she wants you to be, and not when it makes her uncomfortable.
You need to be independent and put together, able to handle all of your own shit without outside help, but you also need to open up and be open to being dependent on her in exactly the idealized way she imagines you should be, but not at all beyond that capacity.
You need to be in good shape and fit, but also not in the gym all the time.
You need a decent social life & friends to display you’re functional and not a serial killer, but you also need to not spend that much time with them or place so much importance on them that they might ever take precedence over your relationship with her.
You need to be funny and charming and entertaining and appealing and make every effort to go the extra mile, but you also need to temper how interested you appear to be - otherwise you’re coming on too strong. But also, if you don’t appear sufficiently interested, she’ll think you don’t like her at all, even if you keep making all the effort to interact with her regularly.
You need to make the move, but only when she’s comfortable and not a second beforehand, because that will make her uncomfortable, and she won’t tell you when you’re on the right side of that line - and if you ask, there’s a decent chance that can and will ruin the moment. But also, you need to respect her autonomy and boundaries and not do anything that could be perceived as pushy, so you better thread the needle, but also, if you don’t make a move when you’re supposed to, then the responsibility is entirely on you.
And if things fizzle, that’s your fault and not hers, and she will immediately assume you aren’t that interested in her if you didn’t make a move when you were supposed to, so you had better get good at reading minds.
You have to just know that there is a mile-long list of other requirements unstated by a woman that she may not even be consciously aware of - like you need to seriously hit the gym for those impressive gains and always be hustling for more green."
What's a man want? Well, she has to be pretty, nice to him and not a psycho.
There is much - well merited - concern about the low level of marriages, the dearth of babies being born, the high rate of divorce, etc.
I'm very interested in the subject of boy-meets-girl problems and I've followed what Hawkins says on the subject with great interest. I learned from his self-help book the different attitude of women on solving problems and I recommend to all subscribers that they looks at this. I guess I was vaguely aware that men and women differ in their attitudes toward problems but Hawkins set it all out clearly.
Unlike a lot of people, I am not surprised at the low figures of marriage, the birth rate dropping to a little more than 1/3rd replacement level and so on.
On the contrary, given how poisonous - or, better put, poisoned - the atmosphere is on relations between the 2 sexes, my surprise is that the figures aren't lower.
So here's my observation:
I think the System, i.e. the liberal/leftist nomenklatura that rules or misrules us, very cleverly set out to poison the well on marriage, children, etc. decades ago when I was a college student in the 1960s.
When I was a college kid, there were 2 very different ideas being pushed by the establishment, both of which were chic, cool and socially acceptable.
But both of which were utterly antithetical but somehow never clashed and ran on parallel but separate tracks , so to speak.
These 2 conflicting but both cool and chic theories were:
1. The Playboy philosophy.
2. Feminism.
Each of these philosophies encouraged and promoted the worst features of each sex.
The Playboy philosophy was "pump and dump." To behave in what we had previously considered to be the way a "cad" behaved.
The Playboy philosophy told us guys to engage in the promiscuity that young men desire. To seduce women. To prey on women. To be cool by not thinking about life seriously....about marriage, having children, the woman whom you wanted to be the mother of your children, behaving responsibly about going old, etc. Even being concerned about the possibility of incurring a sexually transmitted disease, possibly infecting a woman with such a disease and so on was either ignored or even ridiculed as the thinking of a "square", an uncool guy.
Feminism encouraged women's selfishness. Not to ruffle the feathers of the women who have posted comments here (because I am most certainly NOT a misogynist) but I do think women are less idealistic, less inclined to put the opposite sex on a pedestal and more focused on themselves and their immediate needs.
Feminism encouraged women to be cold and "professional", to demean their boy friends and husbands.
These 2 conflicting philosophies ought to have been at each other's throats.
The Playboy guys ought to have opposed feminists but not so. Playboy magazine featured flattering, suck up interviews with feminist men-haters like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. (I know, because, to be completely honest, I liked to look at Playboy and like all boys I liked especially to look at the pictures of the "Bunnies" in the fold-outs, even though I knew it was wrong. So, I read the Steinem and Friedan articles and I did not like them. To be fair to myself, I also did not approve of the Playboy outlook on women and the glorification of "cad" behavior.)
The feminists should have targeted Playboy's soft porn. They should have denounced Playboy and tried to shame guys who were hooked on it.
But that didn't happen either.
Oddly enough, these 2 conflicting philosophies shared one thing in common:
They were cool. They were chic.
I was puzzled by this strange playout on the 2 philosophies.
Only as I grew older and became more aware of how the liberal establishment string-pullers are adversarial to our country, our race and our society did I come to understand why these 2 conflicting philosophies did not collide but instead, as with the flattering, groveling interviews in Playboy with Friedan and Steinem, usually functioned as mutually reinforcing and both of which were socially accepted.
The reason for this?
Both philosophies appealed to the negative features of each sex.
Both philosophies were calculated to disrupt lives, marriages and the birth and rearing of children...all of which are things the liberal establishment wants.
I have really enjoyed the comments on this article. You are all thinking....very unamerican thing to do.
I have a couple of additional comments but I will add them as postscripts for those few who might want to read further, since this comment is already too long
Sam Dickson
PS #1:
My father was a Presbyterian minister. He had all the behavior patterns of Calvinists - he was well educated, smart, shrewd in business. He was #1 in his seminary class and was #1 in all of the classical liturgical languages - Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He was an independent thinker and an admirable citizen. He also was a hard - even harsh - and demanding and rather chilly father. I always admired him....more than I loved him and I did love him, although at times this was hard to do.
Father had a wry, humorous, shrewd side to him.
When I was a boy at about puberty age, Father explained something about marriage to me.
He said:
"Sam, we are Christians and we have a Christian family. Just as the Bible says, I am the head of the family as you will be one day if and when you get married.
"As head of the family, I decide all of the big issues. I decide whether Red China gets in the UN. I decide how many sacraments there are. I decide whether the Pope is infallible.
"Your mother is not the head of the family and she does not decide big matters as I do.
"Your mother decides the little things. She decides where we live, what cars we drive, what we have for dinner and what we wear.
"This is how marriage as a practical matter works out. We guys decide the big things and our women decide the little things."
Behind the humor, I think this idea is also profoundly true of the 2 sexes. Men are better at long term thinking. Women are better at short term thinking. But nowadays, this is all screwed up.
P.S.#2:
For you women out there, I hope I can assuage your anger at what I wrote in my main comment that kind of put you down by saying that my experience is that you are more selfish (and less forgiving) than men.
This is a piece of "practical" advice.
You must understand that living in a marriage with a guy inevitably and unavoidably comes with problems.
You should think of it like having a cat.
If you have a cat to cuddle and love, the litterbox comes with the cat.
The husband comes with his own sort of litterbox.
You learn to cope with it and it doesn't prevent you from loving your cat.
You should accord the same attitude toward your man.