introspective triggered feminist

It's tough to hear, but the truth always is: women don't OWE shy and socially awkward men any forgiveness.

That doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing - it's really just another way of saying that it's hard to date when people don't really know you. That's just inherent to what you're trying to go for. The objective of dating is to find someone who knows you on a deep level - and that's just something that is earned and not demanded by its very nature.

Not sure I agree. If a man treated a woman poorly because she was shy and awkward, he would absolutely be seen as an asshole.

Yes, I do think women should be more considerate of shy and awkward men, because it's not realistic to expect those men to just bootstrap themselves into being confident and outgoing if they're not getting any positivity from their social environment.

Yeah, if a man were imposing himself on a shy and awkward woman, it'd be as bad as you felt being coerced into a social environment where you didn't like the confident outgoing energy.

There's a very simple solution to this, but you're having trouble seeing it because you've not got a lot of empathy skills. You're more sensitive about how things make you feel than you are about how you make other people feel.

And, frankly, women may be picking up on that more than you realize.

I still think society should stop making excuses for women to treat shy and awkward men poorly. And I think women should be more willing to give inexperienced men a chance.

Just like with having a job - how can we expect a person to gain job experience if there are no jobs willing to give an inexperienced person a chance?

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis that I'm not an empathetic person. My counselor remarked multiple times that she thinks I'm a highly empathetic person.

Rather, my personal difficulties with dating seem to be that the only girls who seem interested in me are always underage, and I don't encounter a whole lot of girls around my age at all since graduating from high school.

I'm 24, and the only girls I ever encounter who seem even remotely interested in me are middle schoolers.

For the past 2 years, I worked at a Godiva chocolate store in the mall about 40 mins from where I live (closest mall to my town). It was a good job, and most of the coworkers were very nice and fun to work with, but in the entire time I worked there, I only met one girl I found attractive and could've potentially started a relationship with - she was a 19-year-old girl who worked with us for about a month and a half until Covid ended up shutting down the mall. She never ended up returning to our store when the mall reopened, and I don't think she even lives permanently in my state. None of the other female coworkers even fell within the demographic of women I would date.

As for other social venues, there's really not much to do where I live, even before Covid. As I recall, the only church I found in my county that had an ongoing singles group aimed at people around my age is Mormon, and I don't believe in that faith.

Women don't owe you a chance. Stick to the ones that like you in the first place - that's the deal that EVERYONE gets and I don't see why you think you're special on that score.

Well isn't that a bit of a problem if the only girls who seem to like me are underage?

Women can continue to treat shy and awkward men poorly, but don't be surprised when manufactured women end up replacing natural-born women for those men when that technology becomes ubiquitous.

If all you want is a robot with no human personality then why are we even having this discussion?

I said 'manufactured women'. That can include human cloning and DNA printing as well.

What the hell makes you think that your conversation with a cloned woman will go any differently?

You interpreted what I said to mean just robots. A cloned or DNA-printed woman would be just as alive as a natural-born person.

"A cloned or DNA-printed woman would be just as alive as a natural-born person."

Because that sounds easier than making an effort to meet people and make conversation with them.

Good luck with the..um...science.

And what makes you think your conversation with them would go any differently?

"That's what all these women you never took the time to get to know have been trying to tell you."
"that you'd have a better shot with women you already know."

WHAT women? The underage girls who seem interested in me? My other female coworkers?

Depends who we're cloning. I'm guessing an opposite-sex clone of myself would probably be a decent match. Maybe the same might hold true for a female clone of a close male friend... who knows.

As for DNA printing - perhaps a brain scan can be done, and a computer can use that analysis to write a genome for someone who would be an ideal match.

If you're ever ready to make a few changes to your approach, the answer is actually already in there for you to realize what you've just told me: that you'd have a better shot with women you already know.

That's what all these women you never took the time to get to know have been trying to tell you.

Post-sci-fi technology is not required and wouldn't fix your problem even if it existed.

You didn't explain exactly what these "high expectations" are.

As far as I can tell women want a guy to be honest, kind and treat her with respect.

Is that bar too high for you?

Did you know that the bar for men is already so low it's a tavern in Hades?

Shy and socially awkward tends to equate to emotionally insecure, that can come with a host of unhealthy behaviors; it's worth doing a bit of reading up on it to make sure you're not worsening your chances.

"To stand up to them"?

You sound like you're looking for a fight, not a date.

""A cloned or DNA-printed woman would be just as alive as a natural-born person."

Because that sounds easier than making an effort to meet people and make conversation with them.

Good luck with the..um...science."

You're missing the point I'm trying to make - if a man is being treated poorly or is not having successes with dating a particular type of woman, those women have no room to be upset if he decides to seek out another type of woman.

If women are never willing to give shy and awkward men a chance, they have no room to get upset if, in the future, they want to create replacements to the women Mother Nature provided.

Society needs to stop making excuses for women to treat socially-inexperienced men poorly. If a man treated a woman poorly because she was shy and awkward, he would absolutely be seen as an asshole. If a man turned down a woman who was interested in him solely because she was shy and awkward, he would definitely be seen as a jerk (and I would agree).

Just like with having a job - how can we expect a person to gain job experience if there are no jobs willing to give an inexperienced person a chance?

It's not realistic to expect shy and awkward men to just bootstrap themselves into being confident and outgoing if they aren't getting any positivity from their social environment (or for that matter, if they're not even getting many opportunities for social interaction).

"You're missing the point I'm trying to make - if a man is being treated poorly or is not having successes with dating a particular type of woman, those women have no room to be upset if he decides to seek out another type of woman."

You seem to be equating 'being treated poorly' with 'not having successes with dating a particular type of woman'.

As Anti already pointed out, women don't owe men.

I think it's also relevant to point out that there are no 'types of women', pigeonholing people just isn't helpful, everyone is an individual.

If you are viewing someone as a type, you aren't really paying any attention to who they are as an individual.

"Society needs to stop making excuses for women to treat socially-inexperienced men poorly. If a man treated a woman poorly because she was shy and awkward, he would absolutely be seen as an asshole."

You are framing this as though there is and always has been equality of the sexes, that just isn't the case.

Women have fought for all of recorded history for access to the things men take for granted, whilst constantly at the risk of harm for trying.

What's not realistic is expecting women to make themselves vulnerable to you so you can take your training wheels off.

Work on developing who you are as a person and then seek opportunities to meet new people without expectations.

"As Anti already pointed out, women don't owe men."

About a year ago, Antithesis called me a "colossal asshole" because I said I'm only attracted to transwomen who are indistinguishable from cis women, and not poorly-passing transwomen such as Riley Dennis and their ilk.

According to him, I'm an immoral person because I'm not attracted to all/the majority of transwomen. Apparently, I owe non-passing transwomen a chance, but the idea that women should be more considerate of socially-inexperienced men is TOO MUCH to ask.

"I think it's also relevant to point out that there are no 'types of women', pigeonholing people just isn't helpful, everyone is an individual.
If you are viewing someone as a type, you aren't really paying any attention to who they are as an individual."

No, I disagree. Men can think of women in terms of types because "shy and awkward men" vs. "confident and outgoing men" are two types of men that women place a great deal of importance on. Women who think the latter type of men are always superior to the former aren't thinking of men as individuals, now are they?

If some men from Group A are having more success with women from Group B (because those women have different expectations that are more in tune with those men's personalities, or because those women tend to be nicer, or there simply aren't as many available men in their group), then women from Group A have no room to get mad at those men.

"You are framing this as though there is and always has been equality of the sexes, that just isn't the case.
Women have fought for all of recorded history for access to the things men take for granted, whilst constantly at the risk of harm for trying."

So in other words, 'if a sexist double standard is advantageous to women, it should stay. Sexism should only be challenged if it harms women. It's fine to let sexist double standards against men today continue to harm men even though they didn't cause that sexism toward women in the past.'

Here's where feminism puts men in a double-bind: if you're a lonely man who is having little to no successes with women, it must be because you have toxic, misogynist views of women. But if you're a confident, outgoing man who has many successes with women, you're a player who only values women for sex.

"According to him, I'm an immoral person because I'm not attracted to all/the majority of transwomen. Apparently, I owe non-passing transwomen a chance, but the idea that women should be more considerate of socially-inexperienced men is TOO MUCH to ask."

People can't help who they are attracted to, it sounds like you were saying that you're attracted to people with stereotypically femme features rather than masc ones.

That's not like saying "I'm not attracted to trans people."

"No, I disagree. Men can think of women in terms of types because "shy and awkward men" vs. "confident and outgoing men" are two types of men that women place a great deal of importance on. Women who think the latter type of men are always superior to the former aren't thinking of men as individuals, now are they?"

I don't think it's helpful for anyone to generalize about groups at all, regardless of gender.

Exactly, if women are generalizing about men and deciding that one group is superior that is just as unhelpful as the reverse situation.

"If some men from Group A are having more success with women from Group B (because those women have different expectations that are more in tune with those men's personalities, or because those women tend to be nicer, or there simply aren't as many available men in their group), then women from Group A have no room to get mad at those men"

This all sounds a bit like vague speculation, how do you know who is having 'success' and who isn't?

Are you describing a personal experience as though it's a social norm?

"So in other words, 'if a sexist double standard is advantageous to women, it should stay. Sexism should only be challenged if it harms women. It's fine to let sexist double standards against men today continue to harm men even though they didn't cause that sexism toward women in the past.'"

Statistics say that women are more at risk of harm from men than vice versa.

Where exactly are you seeing this advantage?

Women are at risk of violence, what are you suggesting men are at risk of?

Finding it harder to get a date?

It's not really an equivalent.

It's not men that are the issue, it's the Patriarchy; that harms both men and women.

You say "the 'double standard' harms men today even though they didn't cause the sexism of the past."

Men today cause the sexism of today, a lot of it is so culturally ingrained it's easy not to even notice it or think one individual trivial comment is no big deal, it all adds up tho.

"Here's where feminism puts men in a double-bind: if you're a lonely man who is having little to no successes with women, it must be because you have toxic, misogynist views of women. But if you're a confident, outgoing man who has many successes with women, you're a player who only values women for sex."

Feminism is just about equality, nothing else.

Neither of the behaviors you described sound particularly healthy or like they are viewing women as equal individuals.

It's common for shy, socially awkward guys to have low self-esteem and to feel insecure, right?

Often, maybe without even realizing it, this insecurity can manifest as a tendency to criticize those close to them, bringing the woman's feeling of self-worth down to their level. After all, if she's confident, she might leave you for someone else.

I mean, if you don't feel confident, it's gonna be intimidating to deal with confident women, right?

I assume you've heard of negging?

In this situation, women are treated as something to be manipulated.
Flattered initially but them emotionally controlled for continued access.

The other behavior is also about manipulation. Women are viewed as conquests, something to gain access to, boast about and then be disposed of. Expendable.

There are guys who combine both of these, pick-up artists who are seemingly shy, socially awkward guys who seem considerate and 'nice' but who also view women as conquests.

Too insecure to believe that anyone would maintain a continued interest, they repeatedly date and ditch for that 'honeymoon' period that requires very little emotional effort.

Both of these behaviors are arguably toxic and are known to women so you can understand their reticence?

Like I already suggested, it's worth making an effort to meet new people, maybe through a shared interest, and seeing where things go.

Lots of relationships are based on shared interests, things that are typically nerdy are way more popular now than they were years ago.

Do you play video games? Do you larp?

What are you bringing to the table? What is it you're looking for?