Who lowered the bar for men?

[datcherygrateful]

My friend and I were talking about how lots of men dating seem to put little effort in, and having just come back from visiting a museum and art gallery, I feel like we've drawn the short end of the stick when it comes to seeing many men and their effort.

She said that's just how men are these days- But I'm a bit baffled

Considering that men found time in the trenches to write a letter to their beloved, that artists would take ages to mix pigments to paint their muses, and some men built palaces for their beloved? Some conquered lands for their love.
Some travelled long distances on horseback in treacherous rain to meet up if only briefly. Books and poems, songs, music compositions all inspired by and made for their love.

Are we expecting too much or not enough these days?

Because it feels like if a man is online and doesn't message or call- that's acceptable by many
If he doesn't confirm plans or plan a date himself thoroughly- acceptable by many
If they don't gift, or romance you- accepted by many

I'd say women. Men have to put in zero effort to get sex now so can't be surprised they have become lazy, going to have people telling me now that sex isn't something women "give" to men and they don't have to earn it 😴 but yes this is the reason I believe men have got worse

The amount of free and easily accessible pornography….sure to keep any single man warm at night….in fact it’s so good at doing it that even some men in relationships spend more time searching/scrolling porn that paying attention to their partner.

The plethora of online dating sites - so many profiles to look at, swipe right and if that one doesn’t like you then next one might. Never in history has there been a time when people have had such widespread access to so many people in the dating pool, too much choice, too much variety which inevitably means never really having to make an effort or to truly invest in one person because hey there is plenty more fish in the online sea and something better might come along.

It's not men, it's some men. Dp would do anything for me, whereas exh never was like that (yes should have done something about that sooner!)

Not everyone acknowledges that, no. Only people who think it must be true because it said so in the tabloids.

Women being willing to have sex without commitment of any kind lowered the bar.

Considering that men found time in the trenches to write a letter to their beloved,

What a romantisation lol

First of all, found time to - much of the time in the trenches they were waiting, waiting and more waiting. So they are were bored shitless and just waiting for leave to go to the nearest town or home (or the next skirmish/attack). They had nowhere to go and not much to do and were trapped as such.

Secondly, you have any idea what many soldiers and sailors etc did when they got leave? .. Fucked prostitutes.

You sound like you live in a romance novel.

The Pill has a lot to answer for

Yeah I've had good partners too but we're falling on deaf ears today

Men used to have to be strong and gallant, a protector and provider to be deemed in high esteem. Now you just need to drink 13 pints and own a car to be thought of as a "legend".

This OP. It was also normal for men to beat their wives, marital rape wasn't illegal, it was common for men to hit the pub on payday leaving their families hungry and bills unpaid...

This.

And Victorian London, for example, had 1000s of sex workers .... With a guide/newsletter they were listed in.

And 10,000s of abandoned babies, or babies being "looked after" by mercenaries, (with whom they didn't exactly fare well. Ever heard of Amelia Dyer?) for a pittance paid by their single mothers who had to work.

Yet people have this hilarious rose tinted view of the past, based on idealisation and ignorance.

having just come back from visiting a museum and art gallery

And you based your view of how men used to be on some art??

Not many artists portrayed the mediocre or sordid or ordinary side of life, did they?

I can only think of Hogarth, and even that was sanitised.

God there is so much romanticising male behaviour on this thread.
I will say that good loving decent men are good loving decent men and they exist.

The bar has been defined by women's financial needs: educated and financially independent women don't have to buy what men have to offer, that's one of the reasons the right-wing in the US is taking away women's rights (and we can expect it further in the UK).
Don't buy into this 'someone is letting men away with it' - they have ALWAYS been let away with it, it is women's situations that changed in recent generations (temporarily).

I think these poets and artists idealised love, but many treated the real women in their lives with contempt. I mean Byron was a total twat. So was Rossetti.

Most marriages were not romantic in the past especially amongst the working classes. People married youngish to get out from under their parents’ feet and stop being a burden. Widowed folk quickly shacked up with someone else for survival. The widow needed a provider, the widower needed someone to cook, clean and raise his motherless children. I guess there was more of a societal contract that people would stay together than there is today, but there was nothing romantic about it.

I think these poets and artists idealised love, but many treated the real women in their lives with contempt. I mean Byron was a total twat. So was Rossetti.

Absolutely.

I wouldn't call Byron a total twat, what he did re his child/mother of his child was evil.

Where I come from (rural/working class) men in their early 20s would get a girl of 15 or 16 pregnant and therefore lock her into marriage, which mean she wouldn't have a fair crack at even finishing school, she'd be childrearing and working part time and keeping house. It repeated itself over and over in my family over successive generations and those families I saw around me. I wouldn't say that those men were consciously knocking the girls up, but the fact it was socially acceptable and highly romanticised says a lot about what people expected for women.

I get that it is not an absolute truth, but not much has changed when it comes to the treatment of women- and I'm not saying all men here

Many marriages fail women
Women and young girls are exploited still
Women are objectified
Men still abuse and violate women
Women are still left with the brunt of care

We've gained some rights but lost others

Are we saying the Pill has done this?
It's reduced the price or diminished the value of commitment?

That's not the reason people think it's true lol.

Beckham is a serial cheat.

He just got caught more with Rebecca Loos than any others.

We've gained some rights but lost others

What rights have we lost?

Not everyone acknowledges that, no. Only people who think it must be true because it said so in the tabloids.

Ah. Then I know something you don't.

What would women be expected to do/give in return for these types of grandiose gestures? Or just the pleasure of our company?

I'll list the some of the rights we've gained;

Voting
Property ownership
Education
Free movement (a poster on here said the ultimate "finisher" of being in the middle east was having to get her husband's permission to leave the country at the airport).
Work/employment
Custody of children
Child maintenance
Not to be beaten within marriage/a relationship and have it dismissed as normal , our fault or a "domestic" we're complicit in.
Not to be raped within marriage
To be able to divorce unfaithful men, abusive men etc.
Preventing unwanted pregnancies
Termination of unwanted pregnancies
Not to be sacked for being pregnant & maternity leave
Not to be harassed at work
Free legal representation if we've separated from an abuser
Shelter for us and our kids if we are being abused
Etc
Etc

Tonnes of fundamental, major human rights.

What "rights" have we lost and how could they ever equal those?

Why would the Pill have "done" it? What are you suggesting has been done?

Men aren't suddenly shittier, they have always, en masse, exploited women, and continue to do so when they can. Look up 'female bodies in morgues' and you'll see that we have even been exploited when dead. (Not for the sensitive stomach, that.)

It's the 'when they can' that matters: when women don't have lives where shelter and financial security depends on men, then more women live independently. It's been seen in countries where educating women has been a priority: the social structure changes in that more women remain unmarried, where previously marriage would have been the most likely outcome for them.

I got married young at 24 to a man the same age. I used to think he was amazing because he would never ignore me, and he was reliable. We liked similar things and had the same sense of humour. I trusted him 100% to never cheat and he didn't.

However, he also would never plan a SINGLE thing of our life, he never even thought to buy me flowers, I had to remind him of birthdays/anniversaries, I sorted all the finances, food shops, what to cook for dinner/lunches, was proactive around the house. He would help me but only after being asked, never took the initiate himself. I had divorced him by 28.

My point is, I used to think the things mentioned in my first para were amazing qualities as both my prior exes couldn't even do these most basic of things, but now I've realised what my ex husband did was just the BARE minimum.

I've met an amazing man now who does every single one of the above things and I'm marrying him this year at 33. Good men are out there but they are in the minority I think...