A woman claiming to have "high" standards as an excuse for why she struggles seems to be at odds with the outcomes of who she ends up selecting for men to date and whom she ends up rejecting. Often this is the case not because her standards are too high, but too narrow. Having high standards implies that she is only seeking quality so when she is selecting and rejecting men, only the good men are chosen and all others are rejected. But when you see her using her "high" standards in practice, you see her filtering for men who are simply taller, more physically attractive, and make more money. Not that men with these qualities cannot be good men, but when she is only using those filtering criteria to select the men, she will often not account for traits that may indicate issues for a long term relationship or ignore men who have traits that would indicate that they would be good long term partners because they did not fulfill those aforementioned traits she is actually filtering for. Having her standards as described would not indicate that they are high, but too narrowly defined.
Therefore, "narrowly" better describes the issue with many women, because they could have far more abundant options without actually compromising on having a quality man if they were to accept men who were perhaps shorter or earning a decent living but not one that would conform to their hypergamic standards of him needing to make more even if he could still provide for her and a family with his income alone. To call such standards "high" would be insulting to men who are good quality men but are eliminated from her set of standards that do not reflect his full ability to be a good boyfriend/husband/father, but rather reflect on her unreasonableness. Narrow therefore is a better term, as "high" standards still eliminate men that should theoretically meet a "high standards" threshold if not for some unreasonable or unnecessary requirement.
So remember this whenever a woman uses the reasoning that her failure in the dating world is because she has "high standards." She does not need to lower her standards to succeed, she needs to broaden them. If a woman's selection criteria only leaves her with a limited number of men who do not even have the characteristics that lead them to wanting to commit to you or make for bad commitments, her problem is not going to be solved by "raising" her standards when she her current implementation of those supposed standards leaves her with only choices that do not work. Rather, she needs to properly prioritize what is important in her selection criteria, because she is often leaving out the very men she claims she is filtering for with her faulty selection criteria.
carnold03 3y ago
Brilliant! Absolutely, brilliant!
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 3y ago
I'm still highly amused at how rarely any traits about a man's character make it into those grocery lists.
And women accuse men of being shallow and superficial...
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3y ago
The argument from such women is that men should bring character and reliability as a basic. There's a certain logic to this in that we shouldn't need to praise people for doing the minimum. We don't praise our friends for not stealing from our bathroom medicine cabinets.
The problem is that these women themselves have poor character and are surprised that while a "strong woman" revels in selfishness and entitlement, that the men who have the scarce qualities they desire have demands of their own. When they REWARD bad character from men, they get more of it just as, and I'm not shaming men but just making an observation, that simping rewards bad behavior from women and gets more of it.
Initial-Glove Wahmyns 3y ago
Height. Income. Dick size. Face. Car. Neighborhood. Status ... ... ...
Nope. Character isn't even on the list.
houseoftolstoy Unchivalrous Christian 3y ago
Often women will pay lip service to the idea that they want a man of good character, but that will not be shown in her final selection. As we know, actions speak much louder than words.
moorekom Urban Hoe Guerrilla 3y ago
Women love to parade their "high" standards as an accomplishment in itself and think that they are quality by virtue of having "high" standards. This is because women care about labels and not about values.
A woman having high standards will only be successful if she is high-up in the social and beauty ladder herself. A beautiful woman having high standards can and probably will get her way when she is in her peak years. But even for her, this does not last forever. Most of the women who claim to have "high" standards are pretending to be elite because they want an elite man.
This is why the myth of the "Alpha female" exists. No alpha man wants a ball-busting, career-chasing, post-wall shrew. But these women will never acknowledge this fact because this posturing is not merely for the sake of elite men. There is also an aspect of asserting their dominance in the social hierarchy of her sisterhood. The reason old women call older men having relationships with a consenting younger woman as grooming and try to portray the younger woman as an infant who is not capable of providing consent and making their own decisions is tied to this dynamic.
Sure, technically, her standards might be "high" or too narrow. But the actual problem is that she has no business having those standards in the first place.
BWMagus 3y ago
It's sort of semantics. As others said, if her standards don't include things like "Integrity", then I don't care if you call them "high", "narrow", or whatever, they fucking suck.