Sick of being valued the least

The only ones making crass and misguided statements is you and Red Panda (and maybe Shadix).

I never made claims about what woman want. All I said is that we shouldn't be so sure what they want. See. You are either not reading or lying, and as a result accusing me of sexism.

In other threads, you can actually see me make generalized statements. Come there and attack me on being sexist and maybe you'd look a bit more credible.

You need to reread your own post. You specifically said that women don't intellectually understand their emotions. YOU said that. I'm not putting words in your mouth. Yes, it's crass and sexist.

In this particular context geberalizations derived from something people read somewhere or heard from someone are not helpful for struggling people at all. They aren't helping their misguided views at all. There is a thread after thread about same thing yet men in question still don't improve in that area at all.

Of course one can start separate thread about their general misconceptions and stereotypes about various groups of people. Maybe it would be better than reenforcing those stereotypes in those who don't benefit from it.

Most certainly a lot could be learned from literature and studies and internet. But not all.

At some point it might be useful to start getting to know real people, start approaching them, getting help and hopefully improve. I don't see how making generalizations helps to improve interpersonal skills in men who struggle in that area.

Of course women may be attracted to thoughtful/nice/kind men, but how do you know a man is thoughtful/nice/kind if he is shy and awkward? Being shy and awkward is a wall for initiating interactions in the first place. People judge quickly from how others present themselves. And the assumption here is that there are thoughtful/nice/kind but shy and awkward guys, and shallow but charismatic and confident guys, but if you find a thoughtful/nice/kind man who is charismatic and confident, would you still choose the shy and awkward guy even if he is thoughtful/nice/kind?

I challenge you to quote me where I said this, because I did not say that.

But I will say it now, since I didn't so far. If pressured to take a position, I would definitely take the view that people don't intellectually understand what they emotionally respond to.

I agree that generalizations lead to controversy and polarization. Why? Because some people misread, misunderstand, take it personal, and seem to want to create drama out of nothing. But don't blame the generalization for that. That's unfair.

Humans don't realize 90% of the processes of the brain. Not everything comes to the logical brain (awareness). People like to think they understand themselves, but the reality is they don't. Especially when it comes to human interactions and relationships, the subconscious mind takes the lead. The intellectual mind then will try to justify, but it cannot objectively rationalize. Our animal's instincts are still the dominate in our lives, and when females are attracted to charismatic, funny and confident guys, they are just responding to their instincts for an alpha male.

We can't always view ourselves objectively either. It can take great training to be able to do so and you will still often fail. I don't know about the statistics of it all but much of what we respond to is not from our logical mind. It's instincts. But humans have the ability to try and rise above pure instincts and we have made great strides. Evolution may weed out certain instincts given time.

Everybody is different. That's the thing. Some women would choose shy guy no matter what. And some never would. There is no collective knowledge of what women choose.

Talythybius, your words, first two sentences.

That's all besides the point. You can make the same argument saying: "Some people are attracted to ugly people."
The "you cannot make any statements at all, as there might always be at least one exception somewhere" just doesn't fly.

Now I agree there are different flavours of 'shy' and some can be attractive or associated with other attractive traits. And yes, you can also be too extrovert, outgoing. But you don't want to have that debate. You just want to shut it down. Why?

Also, it contradicts your post on the top of the previous post. Maybe some people (I am too scared to use 'woman' even though that is the obvious context, hest I be a sexist.) are attracted to people that are unable to connect emotionally. I mean, there is no collective knowledge about what people choose? Right? So people can never learn these things, period, even if they wanted. No way to know. Being nice, communicating well, some may like that, some may hate that. It is all arbitrary and random.

Yes, but let's reduce the grammar to the core.

So what did I specifically state?

You may think this is a trick and I am hiding behind what others say. But it is really not. In the end it was me putting doubt on the statement that we know for sure what woman(?) respond to emotionally, because 4(?)(didn't count nur do I keep track of who is male and who is female) of them, who aren't a good representation anyway, said they disagree with Shadix.

Even after warning you to read carefully, you go back and quote this. Is this malicious?

Again, I repeat that regardless of how YOU think you represented something, it is open to interpretation. The fact that you stated that those people may be right made it sound like you agree with them. And Im not the only one who thought so because others commented as well. I was not the one who origi ally stated it was sexist and others have clearly disagreed with your viewpoint. It has nothing to do with grammar or what you think you typed. Lord knows that all writings are open to widely subjective views in what they mean. Just look at how differently scholars interpret the bible. So regardless of how clear you thought you were on something, it is still open for interpretation. Get used to it.

Saying "they may be right" doesn't mean you said you agree. Maybe you guessed it right, because I do believe that. And others have clearly agreed with my viewpoint.

Open to interpretation? No. It is called the straw-man fallacy.

You did not, originally, call me sexist. But you did call the statement sexist. So you agreed. So why claim innocence? Does it matter if you were first or second?
And even though you interpreted it to be my opinion, when in fact my opinion it applies to both sexes.

Get used to being called sexist? No thank you.

I still don't understand how is this helping shadix (or other people with interpersonal communication challenges) connecting to people and hopefully be able to get a girlfriend/boyfriend/friends? This thread is again hijacked by unnecessary generalizations that aren't based on reality. What does it matter what someone thinks what all or some women want or like.

I didn't say get used to being called sexist. I meant get used to people interpreting your words differently.

My H has trouble with rigid black and white thinking which is sometimes irrationally negative and harmful. He used to make blanket generalizations about women which were untrue and unkind. Maybe consider the possibility that your thinking about women and relationships may be disordered and need changing. If you can learn to value yourself, and autonomy, and everyone's right to be themselves and have their own unique desires and interests etc. I think you would have improved relationships. Not everyone wants everyone else to think they're awesome. I'm perfectly fine with having meaningful relationships, and having others who are neutral to me, knowing some here and there dislike me or admire me for my personality (decisive, stubborn, etc.) depending on their own preferences. Real life is not a popularity contest.. I think you should work on the fact that you have beliefs about yourself and others that are causing you loneliness.

Great post! Amen to that

I concur.

Probably the OP has a faulty thinking, and he doesn't seem easy to deal with from his posts, but there is a fact which is that guys are expected to be funny and confident and outgoing in the most part, and there is emphasis on that. Just read the profile of many (especially young) women on any dating site. These qualities are almost always present. In this respect, I don't think the OP is way off.

Maybe the OP needs to accept himself, but at the same time he needs to show that he's interesting in a comfortable way. I've accepted myself, but I don't know how to communicate with others in acceptable ways, and the result is I'm alone, and I've been for many years, although being shy and socially awkward isn't the only reason in my case.

Good luck to the OP listening to these advises. Just consider that probably most of the women commented here (and interestingly, most posts, as it's always the case in this board, are from women!!) are not as young as the girls you are looking for, and probably they view things differently because of maturity and experience.

My H and I are 27.

If I may ask: is your husband shy and socially awkward?

No he's not shy and awkward, but neither would I call him fun, charismatic, or witty. He was serious, direct, and confident-seeming but not showy, cocky, or charming. I married him because I believed he was honest, straightforward, respectful, intelligent, goodhearted, and the other things I needed in a partner. Women are human beings, as diverse as any. My point is simply that it's absurd to blame the feelings OP expressed on women in general rather than looking inward.

I agree with you, at the end a person can only change himself/herself (if he/she can) to conform to the reality, but he/she cannot change the reality to conform to his/her views and desires.

Anyway I think that wanting meaningful connections or a genuine romantic relationship is so completely normal and that nearly all human beings crave that.. I'm not talking about wishing to be more confident when communicating with the opposite sex because of a desire to find a partner- that sounds totally healthy. The original post was expressing something else entirely... Something I think most women are agreeing is not healthy or rational.

I agree that alpha males may have an edge over other males in the dating world, the same way perceived "hot" or type A, females may have an edge over others. That, however, does not mean that less charismatic or attractive people aren't successful in romance. Given the fact that many, many types of people are dating and getting married means that most people can find a mate if they want to. I think the point is having realistic expectations and trying not to blame the objects of ones attraction for not returning the sentiment. Attraction is a complicated thing and I agree (and I think the science does too, although I can't back it up right now), that people's claims to what they want in a mate versus who they actually are attracted to don't always match (I honestly believe this is what Talthybius meant). If you've ever been on a dating site you see the evidence pretty clearly. Men often say they love it when women email them first and pursue them and I believe they are sincere when they say it. Still when I, and other at least marginally attractive women I know, have initiated contact first, men don't respond in kind. Just another example of people thinking they like one thing, with the actual behavior not following suit. I think this argument can be helpful to the op in terms of helping him understand that he may need to alter the type of women he is interested in. Just as he may feel rejected by women who only seem to want the alpha male, perhaps he is not pursuing the women who are interested in him.