It's bad when people try to justify women preferences with morality or connecting their preferences to being a good human being.

People have tendency to associate women's preferences with morality. When in reality that's not the case.

I'm aware that many people may not read this post or may refuse to understand its points.

Let me clarify: this post is not about criticizing women's preferences. I don't care what those preferences are; rather, it addresses the lack of honesty about them.

I recall a video featuring the popular streamer Hasan Piker, discussing his appeal among women. Hasan attributes his popularity to treating women like people, while the comments suggest it has nothing to do with his looks. However, research shows that attractive individuals often benefit from a "halo effect," where positive traits are ascribed to them. This explains why attractive criminals often receive more sympathy.

This double standard frustrates me. When an average man treats women respectfully, women often dismiss him by saying the bar is low or even "in hell" for men. Yet, when an attractive man like Hasan does the bare minimum, he suddenly becomes relationship material.

Another common excuse is when women claim they are attracted to a man's ambition, drive, and passion rather than his success. I always thought that argument was BS. A man can be passionate about any job, like being a janitor or working at Burger King, but many women won't consider those men dateable. So, is it just a coincidence that women are drawn to "passionate" men who are successful CEOs, business owners, athletes, or music artists?

In a recent post, I discussed how women often gaslight unattractive men, attributing their lack of success in dating to moral failings, labeling them as entitled incels or misogynists. This perspective is flawed, as many misogynistic men, like Red-pill Caillou or the rapper Future, still have success with women.

No amount of "good personality" will help a 400-pound man living in his mother's basement gain traction with women. An unemployed man without a car or sexual experience won't improve his chances by embracing feminism. His situation remains unchanged regardless of his beliefs. So "less male feminists" isn't the issue here. It's almost like they are trolling with their preferences here lol.

The term "conventionally attractive" exists for a reason. it reflects common societal standards. Thus, women are often attracted to certain types of men, this is a fact. This is not red-pill or manosphere propaganda.

This ties back to male gender roles. A lot of progressive women are afraid to admit that they like traditional masculinity (for obvious reasons). But it's so obvious to see that a lot of progressive women do like traditional masculinity though, via their actions (and even sometimes their words). This is the classic don't judge people by their words. Judge them by their actions instead.

The contradictions, the cognitive dissonance, the double speak, or the circular advice men contribute to societal issues, creating confusion and mixed signals about gender roles. For example, when a woman says she wants men to approach her, It has nothing to with her liking extrovert men who are socially outgoing. It's usually due to her having traditional expectation for men to approach women or pursue women.

As I mentioned earlier, I know many won’t read this post. There’s nothing wrong with women having specific preferences, like wanting to date tall or successful men with great careers. The issue arises when they lack honesty about these preferences.

This dishonesty can lead to societal problems in the long run, creating false hope for men who don't meet traditional masculine standards. This disillusionment can foster resentment, contributing to the rise of incels, who are often targeted by the red-pill community. Therefore the red-pill prey on that resentment.

People are always saying we should address the root causes of these issues, not just focus on the symptoms of these issues.

This is post is a perfect example of how addressing the root cause looks.

I believe many women fear being perceived as shallow for their preferences, which is not good of course. There is nothing inherently wrong with the preferences I’ve mentioned. But, does your image or perception matter more than the negative societal consequences that arise from your dishonesty?

This is real problem in society. Mixed messages and dishonesty in dating discourse. When women say "just be nice" or "we like good personality," but then gravitate toward wealth, height, or status, it confuses and frustrates men who internalize these contradictory standards.

The honest message would be:

“Yes, I prefer certain traits like height, confidence, or success. That doesn’t make me shallow—it makes me human. But I won’t pretend otherwise just to sound morally virtuous.”

I'm not being hateful. I'm asking for honesty, not for women to change their preferences.