"Rejection is part of life"

[FeatherBird]

As I said, it seems women aren't as influenced by looks as most men.
Financial independence is a positive factor, of course.
Where do you stand here?


Looks without a personal connection usually end up in a rather empty relationship, but it can be a stepping-stone.


There are a number of factors involved, yes.
Age is another one.


Personal experiences suggest women are more forgiving.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing to some degree.


I was asking specifically about you.
Well?

As for financial independence, I don't make much money.

And no, I personally wouldn't want a companionship-only relationship.

 

[FeatherBird]

A damn big leap there.
I doubt that is usually the case.
I'd say it is more likely that you are simply not their type.


Have you considered other factors why a woman wouldn't be interested in a relationship with you?
Perhaps they are focusing on their careers?
Perhaps they experienced painful relationships in the past, or that they simply value their freedom "too much".
I fall into that category myself, so don't ask me out.


Asking will clarify the situation.
I don't understand your problem.
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained..." <shrug>


Someone above alluded to a simple strategy:
"I am bad at reading ppl, so I will be straightforward and ask if you are interested in going out sometime to get to know each other."

BTW:
You seem to know a lot of single female acquaintances/friends.
Is this correct?

In conclusion:
To put it concisely, you seem to put the worst spin on why women aren't interested in a relationship with you.
Have you noticed that?

There's an expression us Yanks use. It goes something along the lines of "If one individual has a problem with you, they're the a-hole. If everyone has a problem with you, you're the a-hole."

To use that quote as an analogy for my rejections, it's possible I'm simply not the type of some of the gals I've been rejected by. It's also possible some of the gals I've been rejected by have some of the reasons you listed (focusing on career, painful past relationship, enjoys her freedom, etc)

For nearly 100% of my askouts (other than online) to lead to rejection, however, something is probably up.

Just like it might sound like an extreme spin to presume a woman who turns me down is repulsed by me, it's an extreme spin in the opposite direction to presume every rejection I've had was because I'm simply not her type, or because she's simply not looking for a relationship, etc.

I'm not comfortable with the "I'm bad at reading others" line. For that matter, as for the general topic of why I don't want to ask out those I know, it's just a matter of personal preference. You seem to think it's no big deal to get rejected by a woman you genuinely thought was into you. Others (both male and female) have told me the same thing (it's no big deal to get turned down by a woman I thought was into me). But I can't help the fact that it's a big deal to me.

It might sound like I put the most negative spin possible on why a member of the opposite sex isn't into me, I admit. That's probably a result of being told many times in high school that no girl would ever want me (my counselor said it's totally natural for that rhetoric to still impact me even 16 years after graduating high school)

To answer your question of whether I know many a single woman, I suppose I do. Mainly through work as well as through living in a building with lots of neighbors.

 

[Steelbookcollector217]

and i'm sure for all eternity, men will always deal with far more rejection than women ever do

 

[tree]

and i'm sure for all eternity, men will always deal with far more rejection than women ever do

Yes, you've made that clear, repeatedly.

 

[Jonn]

There's an expression us Yanks use. It goes something along the lines of "If one individual has a problem with you, they're the a-hole. If everyone has a problem with you, you're the a-hole."

Spoiler: joke

Damn!
I guess that makes me one! EEP!

To use that quote as an analogy for my rejections, it's possible I'm simply not the type of some of the gals I've been rejected by. It's also possible some of the gals I've been rejected by have some of the reasons you listed (focusing on career, painful past relationship, enjoys her freedom, etc)

For nearly 100% of my askouts (other than online) to lead to rejection, however, something is probably up.

I have said this many times:
For many/most people on the spectrum, a forum context is a better communication medium.
We have plenty of time to think about what we want to say, and don't have the anxiety of real-time social interaction to contend with.
We also don't have to try and interpret body-language.
I recommend, wherever possible, getting to know someone online and then graduating to a RL situation.
Simples.

You seem to think it's no big deal to get rejected by a woman you genuinely thought was into you. Others (both male and female) have told me the same thing (it's no big deal to get turned down by a woman I thought was into me). But I can't help the fact that it's a big deal to me.

I didn't say/think that.
You changed the context of my comment.

The context was:
Being turned down by women you don't have a relationship with.
I said: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
I suggested giving it a try.

It might sound like I put the most negative spin possible on why a member of the opposite sex isn't into me, I admit. That's probably a result of being told many times in high school that no girl would ever want me (my counselor said it's totally natural for that rhetoric to still impact me even 16 years after graduating high school)

Time to let it go.

 

[Jonn]

and i'm sure for all eternity, men will always deal with far more rejection than women ever do

Statistics support this.
Men seem to be less independent in some situations.

In the words of Frank Barone in "Everyone loves Raymond":
"I learned to do without."

 

[Jonn]

As for financial independence, I don't make much money.

And no, I personally wouldn't want a companionship-only relationship.

Give it 30 years.

 

[FeatherBird]

Statistics support this.
Men seem to be less independent in some situations.

In the words of Frank Barone in "Everyone loves Raymond":
"I learned to do without."

One interesting observation is that men (from what I've seen) are way more likely to remarry after becoming widowed.

 

[velociraptor]

and i'm sure for all eternity, men will always deal with far more rejection than women ever do

I was chatting with a former colleague yesterday. We both left the same employer. In her case she kept getting passed over for promotions she was more than qualified for because she had taken maternity leaves in the past and our old employer was concerned it would affect the efficiency of the office if she took another. That's not only rejection, it's illegal. Women face obstacles in the workplace that most men can't even comprehend.

For all you guys who think women have it easier than us, they really don't. Lighten up on them.

 

[Hypnalis]

I was chatting with a former colleague yesterday. We both left the same employer. In her case she kept getting passed over for promotions she was more than qualified for because she had taken maternity leaves in the past and our old employer was concerned it would affect the efficiency of the office if she took another. That's not only rejection, it's illegal. Women face obstacles in the workplace that most men can't even comprehend.

For all you guys who think women have it easier than us, they really don't. Lighten up on them.

That's been so illegal for so long it has to be a "tactical reimagination of reality".
I remember when I did my basic management training (far back in time, in the 20th century), they went to a fair it of trouble to teach new manager not to say such foolish things to anyone ever.

There's an interesting message hidden in your post though.

It's been known for a very long time that taking time off work for children has a large negative effect on lifetime earnings, Especially in jobs/careers where experience (and continuity to keep skills current) is very valuable to an employer.
Paid maternity leave is far from enough to compensate for the loss of a few years of experience.
Which shouldn't surprise anyone who's ever worked in a trade or profession.

Yet it's never been addressed by "the Women's Movement". It's been very positive towards careers for 50-odd ears, but barely interested in addressing important consequences of that.

Amusingly the people talking about it now are the "anti-progressive" side. And it's come up since the population collapse has become a popular topic - which means it's already too late /lol.

For all you guys who think women have it easier than us, they really don't. Lighten up on them.

Women have a much easier time in the dating market (**).
Or at least the had for a long time - the next decade will be interesting.

(**)
Not entirely without difficulties of course. That's easier, not "always and universally easy".

But particularly regarding rejection, both traditional and modern practices have make things far easier for women.

Remember: Average+ women only actually approach the "top" 5% of men, and only perhaps the top 1% of men never need to make an effort. So the number of "opportunities for rejection" is tiny compared to the male equivalent.
And I suspect it's a lot easier for a woman to accept a polite rejection (because it will be polite) from a "5%" man.

 

[Steelbookcollector217]

I was chatting with a former colleague yesterday. We both left the same employer. In her case she kept getting passed over for promotions she was more than qualified for because she had taken maternity leaves in the past and our old employer was concerned it would affect the efficiency of the office if she took another. That's not only rejection, it's illegal. Women face obstacles in the workplace that most men can't even comprehend.

For all you guys who think women have it easier than us, they really don't. Lighten up on them.

i won't disagree on that, but in the dating world, its not even close though.

 

[velociraptor]

I hear you on dating feeling different. Men face more direct rejections due to initiating more conversations. But for many women, 'rejection' is also the lack of being approached at all – a form of invisible rejection that makes them feel overlooked. It's a different kind of burden. Women deal with unique obstacles and forms of rejection across many areas, not just the workplace.

 

[Rodafina]

But for many women, 'rejection' is also the lack of being approached at all – a form of invisible rejection that makes them feel overlooked

What you wrote here describes my experience well.

It can be hurtful to hear mine and other women's difficult experiences invalidated by the continual statements that women have it so easy. But, it is not worth joining the fight of who has had it harder. I don't see a benefit in proving my pain.

Nevertheless, it's meaningful to see when someone shows they understand.

 

[Hypnalis]

That's an oddly biased perspective.

Only the "top" 5% of men get approached.
Far more men (as a %) are never/seldom approached than women.

Clearly both groups ("most men" and "some women") deserve a degree of sympathy from others. And we can assume, at least for this topic, that the individuals affected find it equally uncomfortable.

But it makes no sense to frame it as being an issue that equally affects XX and XY.

It's interesting to see the Apex Fallacy being applied this way though /lol.

 

[velociraptor]

Nevertheless, it's meaningful to see when someone shows they understand.

I don't understand as much as I need to. I thought I was All That as someone who treated women equally, and then I had a daughter who grew into an adult. She not only comes home and describes problems to me that I had no idea existed until she told me about them, but she also checks my behaviour when I step out of bounds with her. I do this more often than I like to admit.

There is definitely room for improvement on my part.

 

[FeatherBird]

I was chatting with a former colleague yesterday. We both left the same employer. In her case she kept getting passed over for promotions she was more than qualified for because she had taken maternity leaves in the past and our old employer was concerned it would affect the efficiency of the office if she took another. That's not only rejection, it's illegal. Women face obstacles in the workplace that most men can't even comprehend.

For all you guys who think women have it easier than us, they really don't. Lighten up on them.

A common misconception is that when men say a woman faces less rejection romantically/sexually, the man is saying a woman has it easier across the board in every aspect of life.

Quit putting words in mens' mouths. The guy you quoted never said anything about jobs, maternity leave, etc.

You're moving the goalposts.

 

[FeatherBird]

That's been so illegal for so long it has to be a "tactical reimagination of reality".
I remember when I did my basic management training (far back in time, in the 20th century), they went to a fair it of trouble to teach new manager not to say such foolish things to anyone ever.

There's an interesting message hidden in your post though.

It's been known for a very long time that taking time off work for children has a large negative effect on lifetime earnings, Especially in jobs/careers where experience (and continuity to keep skills current) is very valuable to an employer.
Paid maternity leave is far from enough to compensate for the loss of a few years of experience.
Which shouldn't surprise anyone who's ever worked in a trade or profession.

Yet it's never been addressed by "the Women's Movement". It's been very positive towards careers for 50-odd ears, but barely interested in addressing important consequences of that.

Amusingly the people talking about it now are the "anti-progressive" side. And it's come up since the population collapse has become a popular topic - which means it's already too late /lol.


Women have a much easier time in the dating market (**).
Or at least the had for a long time - the next decade will be interesting.

(**)
Not entirely without difficulties of course. That's easier, not "always and universally easy".

But particularly regarding rejection, both traditional and modern practices have make things far easier for women.

Remember: Average+ women only actually approach the "top" 5% of men, and only perhaps the top 1% of men never need to make an effort. So the number of "opportunities for rejection" is tiny compared to the male equivalent.
And I suspect it's a lot easier for a woman to accept a polite rejection (because it will be polite) from a "5%" man.

I've had a woman approach me before. But they're always below me on the looks scale. And even then, it happens extremely infrequently (last time was 7 years ago)

 

[velociraptor]

You're moving the goalposts.

I was giving an example of one of the many ways that women face rejection and diminishment. When the conversation was brought back to dating I addressed that.

So, you think that women have it easier with dating. Let's discuss and see how your side of the argument holds up. If it does. I have doubts.

 

[Hypnalis]

I was giving an example of one of the many ways that women face rejection and diminishment. When the conversation was brought back to dating I addressed that.

So, you think that women have it easier with dating. Let's discuss and see how your side of the argument holds up. If it does. I have doubts.

The data from dating/hookup sites supports the claims that women (in general) have an easier time in the "dating market" than men.

It's not perfect data, it's often interpreted incorrectly, and of course the topic attracts a lot of inaccurate claims.
But it supports what was generally expected: women get approached far more often than men (and hence less reason to independently approach men), hypergamy is real, and the 2025 environment isn't stable.

And that there are far more "invisible men" than there are "invisible women". i.e. the "cases of "rejection and diminishment" are mostly men.
To add insult to injury, men in that group are attacked simply for existing in that state, while there's a lot of sympathy (even in this thread /lol), for women in exactly the same situation.

Clearly this is a failure of "The Law of Symmetry" (**). XX difficulties are being treated and being several times more important than XY difficulties.

Given 21st century definitions of "fair treatment" perhaps it makes sense. But it's not very democratic /lol.

(**)
Sadly it's not a law, but it's a useful analysis principle. It's the first test to use in discussions about differences between XX and XY:
1. Why do the readily observed differences exist?
2. Why does society value those differences differently?

I'm not personally a fan of continuing to treat men as disposable in the 21st century.

 

[Rodafina]

men say a woman faces less rejection romantically/sexually

@FeatherBird
This is an idea that you seem highly focused on.

How does focusing on this concept help you?

Why is it important for you to establish that "women face less rejection romantically/sexually?"