Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Poll Result
Voted 11 times in total
Only thing i can come up with is a general tendency for men to attribute behaviors more often to nature and women more to nurture, as such, admitting one's own flaws is difficult for women because it means they are a bad person, and for men it is slightly more natural as long as they believe they can do something about their biology. Otherwise it is probably even more difficult than for women, if men believe they can't change themselves. ㅤ
Interesting point — there is research showing men and women explain their behaviour differently. But admitting flaws isn’t a gender weakness; it’s a human one. Everyone struggles with self‑image when accountability stings. Real equality means dropping the “men are nature, women are nurture” clichés and accepting that both genders wrestle with their own biology and their own ego.
I could list all the traits or i could just sum up the problem. We live in a society that over the past couple generations has seen the family structure crumble. Where half the women have absent fathers, or father figures. Women raised by single mothers who in general hate men. This is a bad recipe for anything positive in the future. While a lot of these women will gladly tell you about how terrible men are, they will not take any ownership of what this has done to them.
I think the problem is we are a society that struggles with the definition of gender roles now. Tradition made it simple before. Not saying we should go back to that. But the problem is a lot of women today want selective equality. Equal benefits without the negative qualities of equality. In short, she wants equality, but she still wants free drinks.😆
All this has blurred the lines on what a man's role is. Which is why a whole lot of men are just choosing to do what suits them now. Guys have essentially been told by women, "we don't need you". Guys have always built and maintained society. Women have always birthed and raised the next generation. So when men and women get together and form families now these roles are more hybrid. Women still have to birth (sorry, no way around that one). But men CAN stay home with the kids and she can work. Or they can do it traditionally. Or they can work out a hybrid. No two families are alike. No two dynamics are alike.
Anyways i don't think any of this will get any better until women come to a consensus about what it is exactly they want from men. And then they better hope that men still want to participate.
I get where you’re coming from — a lot of what you said lines up with what the data shows. Family structure has changed fast, father absence does have measurable effects, and modern gender roles are definitely more fluid than they used to be. And yes, both men and women sometimes fall into “selective equality” when it benefits them. But I think some of your points lean too heavily on generalisations. Single‑mother households don’t automatically produce women who “hate men,” and the research doesn’t support that idea. The challenges those families face come from economic strain and instability, not gender resentment. And the confusion about modern roles isn’t just women needing to decide what they want — men are just as unsure, according to every major relationship study. If anything, the real issue is that both genders are renegotiating expectations at the same time. Nobody has a perfect script anymore. Equality isn’t about women choosing a single model — it’s about both sides figuring out what works without assuming the other is the problem.
You also make good points. And maybe i generalized with single mother households about hating men. But what i said was "end up hating men". What i meant by that is a wiman choose a poor example of a man because she is a poor judge of character. In typical most women fashion rather than realizing her poor choice early and extracting herself from the relationship and getting away she foolishly doubles down on it. The relationship produces a kid. Now she's really deep it. Inevitably she eventually realizes she needs to leave the relationship if he has already left her for another woman, of course leaving her with a kid to raise on her own. Unfirtunately, the woman has learned NOTHING from this fiasco. Because she doesn't consider HER POOR choice to be HER fault. She'll claim, "i was lied to". As though scammers never lie 🤦♂️😆 So because ahe learned nothing from her poor choice. She CHOOSES another dirtbag. Maybe this produces another kid because these women seldom take responsibility for their poor choices. All this eventually culminate with her eventually hating all men. Which of course she passes on to her daughter. And unfortunately she passes on the same poor decision making.
But i will agree with you on the point that BOTH genders need to decide what works best for them. But i do think you need to get with the idea women DO have EQUALITY now. And woth that DOES comes RESPONSIBILTY for the CONSEQUENCES of THEIR CHOICES.
And also that men do not CHOOSE women. Seldom do men have that kind of pull. Women DO choose men. And most men are relegated to the choices of the women who choose them. So you see, it all STARTS with the women. And if women refuse to take responsibility for this new found equality then expect this to continue.
You're part of society and you don't need always follow the herd especially if some mentally ill individuals decide it's funny to jump into 100 m deep abysmal.
Additionally you should be more careful about the picture mainstream media tries to propagate about society and what real picture of society is. At least from your perspective and what you want to see and what you really see.
Fair point — thinking for yourself matters. But thinking for yourself also means looking at the whole picture, not just the parts the media packages neatly. I’m all for equality, and equality isn’t a fairy tale where one gender is flawless and the other is chaos. Research shows both sides get advantages and disadvantages — and yes, sometimes the system tilts in women’s favour, like in criminal sentencing.
So I’m not following any herd; I’m just following the data.
Opinion
8Opinion
Women get a raw deal in countless ways in the USA anyway. We're better as a society than we were prior to August 18th, 1920 (19th Amendment). And the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 gave women access to credit / debt for the first time. Think about that... just 56 years ago. And the job market has slowly opened up for women with much butthurt howling from men who don't want to compete for a job.
But women also enjoy some perqs men don't get.
You make some solid historical points — women really did get a raw deal for most of U. S. history. The 19th Amendment and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act weren’t that long ago, and the data shows women’s access to political power, credit, and employment genuinely transformed society. No argument there.
And you’re right that women get certain social “perks” too. Studies consistently show women receive more social sympathy, lighter criminal sentences, and more leniency in public perception. So yes, accountability can get uneven depending on the context.
But some of your points drift from data into generalisation. Women aren’t “automatically treated as sweet little flowers” — research shows women face harsher judgment in leadership roles, higher scrutiny for mistakes, and more social punishment for assertiveness. And the “delusional entitlement” thing is more of a social‑media phenomenon than a gender trait — men and women both get sucked into unrealistic online standards.
The truth is less dramatic: both genders have advantages and disadvantages depending on the arena. Women get social sympathy; men get career leniency. Women get dating leverage; men get physical safety advantages. It’s not a scoreboard — it’s a patchwork.
Where I agree with you most is that accountability matters. Equality only works if everyone — men and women — owns their choices instead of blaming the past, their parents, or TikTok.
Curious to hear your take: do you think social media has amplified entitlement more for women, or do you think men are just quieter about theirs?
Oh yeah, my opinion in my initial post was pure subjective opinion based on my personal observations. I wasn't citing statistics. Much like your post. But I agree with you for the most part.
As to social media contaminating men or women more, Well, women are supposedly the more social animals. So I'd expect more impact there. And women are famously glued to their phones. But I have guy friends who are also unreasonably attached to their pocket computers and have meltdowns if the charge level drops below 25%. Also, there are a disturbing number of guys who have latched onto the MGTOW, Red Pill, Incel garbage.
And I probably notice and respond to female entitlement more because I'm a guy looking through a male filter. I can't eliminate that entirely. But at the end of the day, most of the guys I know are still slobs, LOL. They aren't concerned with designer everything and not particularly choosy about the women they hang out with. They are not trying to impress other guys or counting social coup on their buddies. And they are used to being held accountable for their decisions.
Still, I think public opinion gets bent by a relative handful of idiots chasing after "influencers" and ideas on social media. The abnormal people become the bellwether for society because they are louder and more visible. But most people are not that extreme. Most of us haven't changed all that much over generations.
Where is the all of the above button?
I think my #1 is never being happy. Women are less happy now that they get to go to work when they used to be happier than men who had to go to work.
My #2 is never being happy with what they get from gov't and always demanding more from gov't as though gov't is their husband. They treat both the same
My #3 is never being happy with being a woman and thinking husbands and gov't should fix this for them.
I get the joke, but the “women are never happy” thing doesn’t really match the data. Happiness trends show women’s well‑being dipped mainly because they entered the workforce without men increasing their share of domestic labour — meaning women now carry two workloads. That’s not a personality flaw; that’s a logistics problem. And as for “demanding more from government,” men and women both do that — just in different areas. Men push for economic and tax reforms; women push for social support. Different priorities, same behaviour. If anything, the real issue isn’t that women “aren’t happy,” it’s that modern life dumped twice the responsibility on them without updating the support systems.
Glad my joke came through :) I think it is more of an interpretation that female happiness dipped because they ended up with two jobs. The happiness surveys are very simple minded and don't ask why they are unhappy.
There does seem to a correlation between how closely a woman's reflects how she is told it should look. And there are organic factors; women are more prone to depression and anxiety and take medication at about a 20% rate.
The age group 18 to 28 is showing a lot of unhappiness and this age group will have a lot less two jobs scenarios.
double standards. When a guy goes to a club his chances of picking up a woman and getting sex is 1% maybe. When a woman goes to a club to pick up a guy her chances are more like 99%. Its just not fair.
You’re not wrong that the dynamics in nightlife skew heavily — the numbers back that up. Studies on mating behaviour consistently show that men face far higher rejection rates than women in environments like clubs. One large behavioural study found that men initiate around 70–80% of interactions, and their success rate is tiny compared to women’s. Meanwhile, women who actively approach men have dramatically higher acceptance rates — not 99%, but still overwhelmingly higher than men.
Where I think the picture gets a bit distorted is the idea that it’s “unfair.” It’s less about fairness and more about how sexual selection works. Men compete more intensely in these environments, women filter more aggressively, and clubs amplify that imbalance. It’s not a moral issue — it’s just how the incentives line up.
But you’re right that the double standard exists. A woman who wants sex can usually find it quickly; a man has to work for it. At the same time, the flip side is that men face less stigma for casual sex, while women face more — so each gender has advantages and disadvantages depending on which metric you look at.
If anything, the nightclub dynamic is one of the clearest examples of how equality doesn’t magically flatten human behaviour. Biology, culture, and social norms all collide in one loud room with bad lighting.
Curious to hear your take: do you think the imbalance is just nature doing its thing, or do you think modern dating culture has made it worse?
All of them humans are gynocentric as a species survival mechanism. The uterus is more important than personal failings.
You’re right that biology gives women certain evolutionary leverage — reproduction is costly, so societies historically protected it. But calling humans “gynocentric” oversimplifies things. Modern data shows men still dominate political power, economic influence, and physical risk‑taking. If anything, we’re not gynocentric or androcentric — we’re inconsistently selective, depending on the situation. Courts lean one way, workplaces lean another, dating markets lean a third. Biology sets the stage, but culture rewrites the script every decade.
an example is 'happy life happy wife'. we let her nag and with hold intimacy. what can we do? hitting is immoral. so will we with hold intimacy from her? she did not even want. new testament has a solution- but i doubt most christian lady obey those two sections.
Women will get competitive over things they don't even want just because they want to win. That's been my observation.
Competitive behaviour isn’t a “women thing” — it just shows up differently. Men compete directly (status, dominance, achievement), women compete indirectly (social comparison, reputation, subtle rivalry). Psychology research calls this intrasexual competition, and both genders do it — just with different strategies. So yeah, women sometimes compete over things they don’t even want… but men compete over things they don’t even need. Different tactics, same human instinct.
I somewhat agree, but will clarify; men will compete over ANYTHING. Forget about needs or wants, just lay down a challenge or a wager and men will compete over it. Women compete emotionally for both control and recognition.
That women aren't violent as men which is BS.
Women exhibit violence towards children and even animals but someone society tends to overlook it but not me.
Violence isn’t a “men vs women” scoreboard — it just shows up differently. Men tend to show physical aggression more, women tend to show relational or indirect aggression more. Both are real, both matter, and neither gets a free pass. If anything, equality means acknowledging all forms of harm, not pretending one gender is incapable of it.
The Lindsay Clancy trial is a very good example of what's wrong with society. If the genders were reversed and Patrick killed the kids, people would be calling for Patrick's death, but because Lindsay has a vagina, they are making excuses, blaming Patrick and so on. It's evil and wrong.
I get your point — the Clancy case definitely shows how public sympathy can tilt depending on who’s on trial. But if we’re talking equality, we have to acknowledge that bias cuts both ways. There are cases where men get leniency because of status or perceived potential, like Brock Turner, and cases where women get leniency because of emotional‑abuse narratives or maternal framing, like Mary Winkler. So instead of saying one gender always gets the advantage, it’s more accurate to say the justice system reacts to stories, not just facts — and those stories land differently depending on who’s telling them.
Yes but the stats don't lie, women on average get less than half the sentence men do for the same crimes.
You’re right that the Clancy case taps into a real pattern — sentencing data consistently shows men get harsher penalties than women for the same crimes, even after controlling for severity and prior record. So yes, gender absolutely shapes how cases get framed and how sympathy gets distributed. But it’s not a one‑way street. Courts bend depending on the story, not just the gender. Brock Turner got leniency because he fit the “promising young man” narrative, while Mary Winkler got leniency because she fit the “distressed wife” narrative. Different genders, different biases, same problem: perception beats consistency. So I agree with you that the Clancy case highlights a tilt — but the bigger issue is that the justice system reacts to whichever narrative hits hardest. Gender is part of that, but it’s not the whole engine. Curious to hear whether you think judges or public sentiment drives that tilt more.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
