I’m half wondering if this entire eloquent and vulnerable response wasn’t just the usual reflexive emotional work by a woman in response to a man in distress, and I’m gonna have to think about that first. Meanwhile, it was a good response to a letter that began well, had a good twist, drew me in, and then lost me at the part where women get him wrong because he’s too good to be true. The last time I said something similar about myself I was twenty years younger and being enabled by people who actually let me believe it. None of us are that good. And I definitely feel wary around anyone who allows themselves to say such things about themselves, including me. I have set my own alarm bells off many a time!
But maybe this letter was a good effort, a good start. PS- Please don’t become enraged. PPS- it’s telling that I wanted to say something but was frankly afraid to, and am now using dark humor to frame that.
I agree with you! None of us are that good. I have been out with a few guys in the past who were like this and they made it seem like everything I said and did was somehow magical. It made me think well wait until you **actually** get to know me - are you gonna be disappointed?? I feel like the women he dated must have felt the same way like oh no this guy has put me on a pedestal and that's a bit of a red flag. It's not about being a good buy or a bad guy...it's just that ultimately we want someone real and someone who acts like they are that good appears unreal.
Like I said in another comment, I've never run away from someone who seemed too good to be true till they actually turned out to be so. As for being put on a pedestal, that's never very comfortable, obviously. My late husband kind of did that to me in the beginning, and I let him get used to me long enough (like, a few years! luckily I was busy enough with my work to not mind) to disabuse him of his illusions, and he didn't object. We were together for altogether fourteen years before things took a turn, possibly just because he was getting old and insecure? I'll never know. We got married just a few months before he died, and it was eerie how immediately he began saying things like, "now that we're married, you..." and criticizing me about the housekeeping. Mind-boggling! He was not perfect by a long shot. But he definitely treated me wayyyyy more like a fellow human being he did not have to compete with or struggle for power with than any man I knew before or since him, and for way longer. So, a good man is not impossible to find. And a good relationship isn't impervious to the wear and tear of patriarchal convention always biting at your ankles, either. Not to mention, not all relationships need to go on forever to be considered a success.
LW here. I've responded to your criticism in more depth a couple of other places in the comments, but it's very well-taken. It was an oversimplification of the problem, and rightfully has people reaching for their alarm bells.
I have to say, I've never run away from someone who seemed like they might be too good to be true until they turned out to actually be too good to be true.
CJ, this is neither here nor there but just say I used to see your work on The Hairpin, I’ve followed your New Yorker cartoon career, and I so enjoy all your work, so it was such a nice thing (and not so much of a surprise, since people with good taste gravitate to people with good taste) to see you on here! That is all.
Amazing letter + response. As a woman probably around LW's age, I will say that I've become resistant of men who openly tout their emotional intelligence and other wonderful sensitivities. It used to be the opposite, but after falling for a guy who was always mentioning how important integrity was to him, and then later finding out he was cheating on his girlfriend with me, I started to pay more attention. The kindest, most honest and emotional men were never the ones always talking about their kindness, honesty, and emotion. They just were. Or, if pressed, they'd say, "I try my best but I'm sure I could be better." So when I read that women are dismissive of LW because they don't believe he's real - my first thought was - there's something about his behavior that's coming across as disingenuous or not real, and it's not just how great he is ;) And if that's not true, he may be choosing women who genuinely prefer to date jerks (I have some friends who will openly admit to this). So *then* the question is - why?
I am the LW, and I want to for sure endorse this skepticism. Your points are spot-on. The setup comes across as self-centered and oversimplified, to be sure, which rightfully is grating at people, especially in a letter about being open to complexity...
I absolutely try to do what you say in actual life, but that doesn't come across well.
Instead of talking about it to women who get suspicious, maybe tell all your male friends how you do it, maybe that will help improve the world, too! :)
Hmm, there is something that feels a little bit off about this whole situation.
I'm zeroing in on this key passage in the original letter, that women "disbelieve I am real. They think there must be a catch, and attempt to apply the same oversimplified and unambitious routines to me that they do to other men. Somewhat confusingly to me, they become agitated rather than excited when these routines don’t fit me."
LW BRO, I see that you are haunting the comments and feel the urge to reply again and again. I'm wondering if these women are getting agitated because of your communication style--the way you act and speak when you feel uncomfortable and a little bit defensive. Like, it's not really what you are saying but just that you are saying sooo much of it. It's a lot of words and arguments and "see my previous comments" to sort through.
I get it, I also am a person who says a lot of words! But sometimes if you say more and more and more, people reach a tipping point where they stop seeing it as a fun conversation, and start seeing it as an overwhelming amount of information.
In a worst-case scenario, this defensive overexplaining comes across as emotionally needy, attention seeking, or even controlling. Because of this, many people (many of whom are women) will back away from someone who is overexplaining themselves, because they're nervous about being emotionally and intellectually drained.
I'm NOT saying you are like this, or that you do these things!!! But you might be accidentally REMINDING people of other bad experiences they have had with other people. And sometimes just a teeny bit of reminding is all it takes to make people uncomfortable.
Women who have been bullied or drained by OTHER men who came before you--men who got what they wanted by arguing things to death and always having the last word--might be particularly likely to back away from that defensive overexplaining energy from a man, especially a man they are considering as a romantic partner.
I'm not trying to roast you or accuse you of anything, I'm just trying to sincerely offer helpful input based on your letter and comments. I want you to know that I have very close friends who are men and women, as well as nonbinary people, trans people, etc. I also work with autistic and ADHD teens and adults of every gender. So from my perspective, I don't think this is a gender issue at all, I think it's just a social skills issue that all humans have to learn.
Have you considered asking your close, trusted friends for some honest input? Like, ask them if there's anything you could do differently that would make people (men and women) feel more comfortable communicating with you?
Very well said. BRO, I think a lot of people can relate to maybe not being aware when you are being overwhelming. (I’ve certainly had to battle that tendency in myself for most of my life, and fwiw I’m neurodivergent). This might be a good comment to take to heart and see if it can help inform your future interactions with partners of any gender. Yes we have a lot of societal problems with toxic masculinity, but it doesn’t quite add up that every single person would leave just because you’re the first kind person they’ve met. I know that might be hard to hear… : /
I want to start by saying that this is a very considerate, kind, and well-articulated comment. Thank you for it.
I will point out, in response, that multiple other comments specifically called me out for NOT responding to comments. There’s no way to win.
That’s the reason I didn’t ask for advice from Polly or anyone else about my behavior: because it’s not the issue, and explicitly not the point of my letter. It’s that we need to work together to make things better for everyone, even if I’m royally fucking things up somehow.
Everyone keeps getting distracted by giving me dating advice. We’re ignoring the forest for the trees. I’ll redirect people back to the forest all day if I have to, because the forest is the problem.
Well, if the forest is toxic masculinity, we can’t really address that since most people here are women.
What we *can* help address is the problems that letter-writers come to Ask Polly with. You have a problem in that you keep encountering the same behavior from partners you date, men and women. You’re assuming that everyone breaks up with you solely because men have been unkind to them, while you alone are kind to them — the first kind man they’ve ever met, in fact, and it throws them off.
People are trying to help give you perspective on that, since that’s an actionable way to help, and you’re not allowing an ounce of insight in.
I just don’t see the point of writing in a letter to say “So many men are mean but good men exist too and why can’t women be aware of that? I, for one, am extremely good.” That can’t have been your point! And if your point is “Hey, female readership, your expectations of men are too low and that’s why men have been so bad,” my question is: Why aren’t you talking to your male friends about the ways in which they’re not measuring up? Why did you bring that complaint to this space? I write all this with a strong suspicion I will be frustrated with your response, unless you’ve suddenly changed your tack since yesterday, which is unlikely…
I'm generally done responding to comments, largely because the persistent distrust of me, personally, seems to increasingly be crowding out productive collaboration, which is my entire point. As I have kept saying, the point is not about ME and whether these women choose ME. They can do whatever they want.
I think some people are going to keep being frustrated no matter what, which is their right! But I would at least ask you to think, in the context of this morning's exchange, about why you would assume I am NOT talking to my male friends about this constantly. And that I explicitly stated why I wrote my letter – and to Polly specifically – in the original letter. And to ask why you think you can't address toxic masculinity, even though you're a woman?
I already read your exchange with Heather from this morning. Sure let’s ask women to fix toxic masculinity, and while we’re at it, let’s ask Black people to fix white supremacy, and the poor to fight domination by the rich. It’s just because their expectations are too low.
I don’t have any energy anymore. You’ll grow, or you won’t.
I really like that you came back to respond - it’s brave to engage with so many strangers who suddenly have access to your most intimate thoughts and fears!
Just one thing popped out at me - I used to feel a lot like you in my 20s (I am a woman), and now I’ve come to realise that it came from moving abroad for studies into a very competitive, male-dominated environment, and also culturally very different from my home country.
I spent a lot of time moulding myself into what I thought was just right - the girl with extra food in her office, good listener, kind, but also smart and competent, but never proud of her smartness and competence, and also not scared to be vulnerable, but not so vulnerable it pressure on anyone else, blah blah! And then just couldn’t understand why men didn’t appreciate how perfect I was!
And honestly, I was just fine-tuning myself and my reactions to suit other people all the time, which can make you very rigid - subconsciously, you want other people to make the same effort for you. And then you’re not easy in your skin, and not accepting of others.
So I think you are probably a great guys, just - you don’t need to prove it all the time :-) And honestly, most people are not naturally aggressive and are creative - I would go so far as to say all people, all genders. The few that appear that way are probably battling some kind of pain. So to paraphrase other Polly advice - just be kind to yourself, allow your own needs and those of others!
Sorry about the long comment, but past me really relates to you. Also, if some of your fear is driven by a sense of “now or never” for finding the right person - don’t worry, it’ll work out!
This is a highly perceptive comment, I wish I could like it twice - and I think it's interesting and quite telling that the LW hasn't really engaged with the content of it in his answer. I feel like the LW's answer might be a really good illustration of the point that Tara is trying to make - saying what you think people want to hear rather than "allowing your own needs and those of others". BRO, what do you make of Tara's suggestion?
This is very sweet and thoughtful. Thank you for it! The women in these comments are proving my point over and over that women are lovely and deserve better. It's hard out here for all of us. If nothing else, I appreciate knowing that someone else in the world empathizes with me!
You could be this guy I dated briefly. He would have described himself in similar terms. He was in his 50s, and I'm not sure he's specifically aware he's neurodivergent, but everything else tracks. Kind, vulnerable, good job, lots of friends, takes care of people, including his aging aunt and mother. Childhood trauma. Old-school hacker.
Our first date was phenomenal. He took me to a restaurant where he knew the owners, and asked them to bring out some fabulous dish which wasn't on the menu. He pulled out a bottle of organic wine which was made by friends of his. He asked me intelligent questions and listened. He took me home, gave me the boxed-up leftovers and a hug, and left.
Hallelujah!! A unicorn!
So what happened?
As I learned subsequently, there is a vast gulf between learning to feel one's feelings, and knowing how to regulate them. It's not possible to be a good and present partner to another person if you can't do BOTH.
What happened was, his aunt died. She was 92. She had severe dementia and had been declining physically for a decade. He loved his aunt and took fabulous attentive care of her for all that time.
His response to her death was as extreme as if it had been totally unexpected. He spiraled into a chaotic grief state which alarmed me. He had a history of depression, and a crash seemed imminent.
I asked him what he was doing to regulate. As in eating regularly, sleeping, seeing friends, seeing a therapist. I had just gotten out of a relationship with a man who had no room for both his feelings and mine, and I was not going to walk that path again.
He became extremely defensive and argued that he was "not my ex." He defended and defended and defended. He wouldn't let it go. For days.
He argued, Bro, in much the way you're doing here. Not knowing when it's time to take in what someone says, let them have their own feelings, and move on.
That was all I needed to know. Because what I was asking, in effect, was, "can you regulate your own feelings, in real time, well enough to be responsive to mine?"
Ok sorry but I can't tear myself away from this -- the one question I wish I had just asked Bro from the start is this: if a magical omniscient being presented itself in front of you and told you that the reason things didn't work out with women/men you've dated was actually NOT due to society/culture/expectations of men/their upbringing/past experiences and instead had to do with you, how would you feel? And if you had to guess, what would those reasons be?
When people break up with me, I usually try to get a good sense for why (and if I can't get a straight answer, I think about moments of tension in the relationship and what I might have done to cause them). You could say I look for reasons to blame myself and that isn't the healthiest behavior, BUT it has helped me understand what people I like value, where my (many!) flaws are, and what kinds of people I should probably steer clear of in the future.
I know you don't want to talk about your dating life anymore, and no need to respond to this. But I have a few friends whom I adore but also can see how they might be difficult to date quite clearly -- and yet, when they get broken up with, it is always the other person's fault/timing/anything but turning inward and reflecting.
Part of the whole deal with being a member of an oppressor class is that the oppressed have the right to talk shit about you. It may seem unfair. As a white person, I don't love when POC say [insert negative generalization about white people here] because I'm an individual, how can you make this generalization without thinking about meeee (please exempt me from this, because i'm better??) But part of growth is learning not to take things like that personally. Or, do take them personally, if you must. But then you have to sit with it and feel the pain of it without getting overwhelmed and lashing out.
I’m not sure if this is allowed, but I am the writer of this letter. I wanted to respond publicly since you responded publicly. It seems unfair for only one of us to hide in anonymity, especially about a topic like this. Plus someone challenged me today to take frightening leaps ;-)
First, thank you for the incredibly thoughtful reply. Today, this letter is – as you say – exactly what I needed when I needed it. I had to clear my tears before composing this. Your ability to understand people from brief blocks of black-and-white prose is remarkable. Your advice is something I will cherish for a long time.
There may be other things that occur to me later, but I wanted to respond to a few things:
1. The point you raise about my insinuation that it’s the women who can’t see me and not anything wrong me. The spirit of this criticism is well-taken, and is something I thought about as I wrote the letter.
That said, I still oversimplified in my statement of the problem, ironically in a letter asking you to be less oversimplified…oof. I'm sorry for that. I certainly don’t think I’m perfect, and I don’t at all think these women are wrong to be highly skeptical.
I think you un-simplified my oversimplified explanation very well, so thank you for that.
2. I actually do think all men, or perhaps more accurately all people, are some combination of uncreative and aggressive. I am certainly not immune to this statement, and they are not in principle bad things.
I do think the majority of men have these traits either left unchecked or outrightly encouraged throughout life, and that leads to a number of problematic behaviors. Right now, I think it’s important to say both parts: that this is true, and that it doesn’t have to be/we don’t want it to be. For anyone the statement applies to, and for all of the reasons you mention.
And I think the world would be much better off if it were defined by people who embrace the things you and I both celebrate: softness, vulnerability, caring deeply. Right now the vast majority of those people are still women, but I hope that continues to change.
3. I really hope I didn’t come across as blame-y in my tone, to either you or the women in question. My intention was to be collaborative; my blame fingers are pointed squarely at our current society and culture, and no individual person. We’re all just winging it out here, and I know we’re all doing the best we can.
Even your replies that have naggy parts for me are still well-intentioned and helpful. All of the women I collectively refer to are pretty outrightly lovely people, even if it didn't work out with us. I didn't mean to imply anything otherwise.
The emotional motivations behind your interest in painting men as rigid and self-protective are understandable and relatable. And they are no less emotional and self-protective than my interest in writing letters about imagining non-rigid men :-)
Thanks for this, BRO! *fist bump* I didn't think your tone was blamey at all. I do wonder why women would be skeptical of you, since you sound pretty open and smart. What do they say when they're backing away, for example? What reasons do they give for it? It was hard to understand that part of your letter, and... SINCE YOU'RE HERE...
The actual back-away texts (and it's always a text, isn't it?) are usually some formulaic AI breakup-bot text like "We want different things/it's not you it's me/I'm just really focusing on me right now, you're lovely though, goodbye." Which would be instructive, except they are often abrupt and total non-sequiturs to whatever is going on (i.e. not conspicuously following "what are we" convos and the like).
I am hesitant to diagnose anyone, but I think a lot of it is age and trauma. I'm now in my mid-30s, and tend to date 3-4ish years on either side of me. As I said, I'm a recovering trauma bb, so I tend to attract similar types.
I am also hesitant to puff myself up after my botched-ish setup in the letter, but I've had explicit conversations with essentially all of these women pre-exit about how I'm redefining what they thought was possible with male romantic partners, and how interactions with me have helped them realize they have trauma that they had suppressed (and I've gotten the entire gamut of Man-Caused Traumas by now). I give my rough age because I think in the 25-35 age range I've dated, I'm often not just the first kind man, but one of the first kind people at all, that these women have experienced.
I mean, just throwing this out there-- incompatibility doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.
If someone breaks up w/you saying "it's not you, it's me," it doesn't necessarily mean that there's something to diagnose--either for you or the other person.
Every time I've broken up with someone, or declined a next date with "it's not you, it's me," I guess a more accurate truth would be something *did* put me off, but it seems unwise to say what. It's shallow, or, conversely, may indicate something acutely dangerous about the guy.
People can't "diagnose" what your deal is, not because you're too good to be true, but because it's going to be something different for each different person. And it's probably not worth changing about yourself.
Also: I think there are far more non-aggressive people out there than you might think. It's not a trait that's necessarily pervasive. It really seems cultural how widespread aggression is.
Hmm I have to say I think what you are experiencing is fairly normal in the dating world. I understand the comfort in pathologizing it, but I’m not sure you can be so certain from those interactions. I’ve dated some kind men that I just haven’t been attracted to (and some that I have!) I would sooner chalk it up to chemistry than paint women and men with such broad strokes.
I understand what you are saying. There are many women (and men) whom I have no chemistry with. MANY. The vast majority, even. I am 100% certain that's not the issue I'm dealing with in these particular cases, for a variety of reasons. Not least because all of these conversations happen after weeks, if not months, of dating, and even after moving past exclusivity/commitment and the like.
I can relate firsthand to the trauma that's called up the first time you experience a truly kind person. It's A LOT. Couple that with all of the heartbreakingly bizarre expectations of perfection I've heard these women express feeling like they have to conform to in romantic settings (example: worrying I'll lose attraction to them bc they have COVID and are coughing), and I think it's a one-two punch that leads to an understandable panic exit. Then shame takes over and that's that.
So the solution isn't really that they have to change anything, it's generally that men need to stop being shitty. And after hearing from these same women multiple times over that "the bar is way too low for men," I think a big part of the solution is to try to raise the bar.
BRO, I mean this in a kind way, but aren't you falling back into your "I'm too good/kind to be true" narrative here? I can't help thinking there must be a bit more to it than that. Can you tell us more about this from your original letter: "They think there must be a catch, and attempt to apply the same oversimplified and unambitious routines to me that they do to other men. Somewhat confusingly to me, they become agitated rather than excited when these routines don’t fit me, and often abruptly leave." What do you mean by "oversimplified and unambitious routines" and your partners getting "agitated"?
I'm making the assumption that your kindness in relationships is authentic and that your words match your actions. I don't think I would automatically make that assumption if you were one of the first kind people I'd experienced.
Were you surprised by what they said in these pre-exit conversations? Or had you kind of already guessed?
Initially I was surprised. But as I understood my own story more, and heard more stories, I came to be less surprised. I am no longer surprised, but always heartbroken, at the sheer volume of negative stories I hear. It's everywhere, and constant.
I certainly HOPE I am not the first kind person they've encountered, but some have said so explicitly, and some have implied as much in other things they've said.
I want to reiterate my refrain, though: none of this is about me. It's about us imagining what we want men to look like, and then holding ALL of us to that standard.
I loved Heather’s response, but this line stood out for me: you’re ”hard to see clearly when you’re not leaping enough.” I’d love to hear more about this - what makes us hard to see when we’re not leaping enough? (Speaking as someone who’s been avoiding leaping for a while)
Hi Lisa. Okay bear with me. Even though your comment is RIGHT BELOW my response to BRO, which includes my response to your question here, I've found that these threads can be hard to trace if you hit the wrong sorting button, so I'm just go to REPEAT MY ENTIRE COMMENT FROM ABOVE to make sure you see it. I'm also going to try to write a stand alone column on this subject for tomorrow, so stay tuned and thanks for the inspiration! xo
---------
To the LW:
I love that you're engaging here, but part of the risk of engaging is that it becomes harder and harder to assert your central message. People observe and sense and intuit and feel their way towards a more vivid picture of what you're about, and each person is going to bring their own tangle of ideas and projections into that exchange. Your agenda splinters and blends in with dozens of other agendas.
Lisa, below, asks what this line really means: "You're hard to see clearly when you’re not leaping enough.” I'd argue that the meaning of that line is illustrated throughout this thread. The more you explain yourself, present additional evidence, clarify this or that point, justify your choices, and repeat the central thrust of your letter, the less we can see your true nature. Your gestures and your voice and your efforts to persuade us intellectually block us from getting a glimpse of your heart.
You're extremely polite about receiving input from others, but we're shown no evidence that anything in my response or their comments is sinking under your skin. That's understandable, of course: You didn't come here to get analyzed! You came here to talk about raising the bar on our discussions about men! I empathize with that agenda and support it. But along the way, we've been treated to a clearer portrait of why you might be struggling to connect with people in the real world in ways that feel satisfying and dependable.
On one pass of my edit, I almost cut the line "In my experience, people who can’t risk being misunderstood are often still sorting out exactly who they are." I didn't really have evidence that you couldn't risk being misunderstood, and I didn't want to lose your trust by describing something that didn't make sense. But something in my gut said, "This guy can't risk being misunderstood. That's what his man-related crusade is about, and that's what his relationship challenges are about." While I did and absolutely still do accept your challenge to change my bad habits around describing what men are/aren't capable of, my whole swerve into letting go of your agenda and surrendering to what the day is bringing you was an attempt to get you to show up and feel where you are without always delivering a detailed thesis on the subject.
You didn't come here for that message, so I'll drop it. I just want you to understand that, as another astute commenter mentioned, there's a point where you have to stop persuading and just show up and be the broken, scared person you are. For someone like you, that takes more than understanding WHY you should show yourself, and it takes more than just accepting yourself emotionally and intellectually. It takes a leap into the unknown that feels terrifying. It requires you to hear other people's words about you and try them on for size and see how they feel and if they feel VERY BAD, to ask yourself specifically why they feel bad, what are you afraid they're saying, what are you afraid that it means.
The fact that you're encountering input from strangers as more evidence that supports the thesis you arrived with tells us that this isn't a relational problem or a culture problem, it's a problem of repeatedly projecting your very carefully constructed argument onto people, places, and things that are treated like blank screens that reflect exactly what you want them to reflect. The feeling of interacting with someone who does that is dehumanizing, and people flee from it, usually just by following their gut instinct.
I want you to understand that everyone does this. I did it with my book about marriage, and now I'm finally humbled enough (because not in the publicity cycle!) to slow down and understand more about the real snags and flaws that people perceived in my story and in my worldview. Obviously I care much more about the book as a work of art than I do about how people might analyze me, just as you care more about your agenda, which is a perfectly sound one if you ask me, than you do about what random strangers on this newsletter think about your relationship troubles.
BUT! But. It's still good for me, a person who never wants to feel closed off from the world and never wants to stop growing, to learn from every single shred of emotion and thought that comes floating my way, even when it's a threat to some of my most treasured beliefs or ideals or defenses or ego-driven desires. I can reject things anytime I want, but I have to know why I reject them and what I'm building in their place. I have to ask myself if I'm merely protecting myself from something I'm afraid to face.
And most of all, I have to just stand still and be what I am, a pretty flawed and overexposed and unfinished human being, and I have to trust that it's not just good to stand still and do nothing and explain nothing, it's actually divine. It's divine to let the world in, as it is.
That takes a leap, every single day. It requires surrender. But the very best people can see you the most clearly when you're thoroughly surrendered, and the very best people aren't afraid of you in that state. They think it's beautiful.
I really do think you're a remarkable person and I wish you all the best. Thanks for being here and giving us so much of yourself, it's really been a pleasure. I know it's not that comfortable or even what you wanted, so I appreciate that you stuck around anyway.
related-- a lot of things about man-woman relationships were clarified for me when I read the novel Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters. in the book, the characters are very aware of how their genders are material to their relationships, and how certain relationship dynamics confirm or challenge the storytelling of one's gender (ex: one trans woman character seeks out toxic relationships with cis men bc she correctly identifies that as part of how femininity is constructed in our culture).
I'm wondering if these women "run away" from you because part of their storytelling about what it means to be a woman has to do with putting up with masculine bullshit, whether they'll admit it or not. in which case, I'm sorry! these women just haven't untaught themselves that aspect of relationships yet.
I think you're very right. See my reply to HH above; they're usually pretty clear before things end that they are having a lot of cognitive dissonance as a result of their expectations with male partners. I want to be clear it's not their fault at all. It's a collective problem we're all trying to solve. We'll get there.
Women who don’t trust men got that way by being hurt, badly, multiple times, by men. And told that it was their fault. Read Am I The Asshole on Reddit to see story after story of a woman accepting abuse and still wondering if she is at fault.
Trying to be a good man sounds like an unquestionably good thing. But trying to look like a good anything can veer off into people-pleasing very easily. What’s wrong with people-pleasing is that it comes from a desire to appear a certain way to get a certain outcome (to get something good or to avoid something bad). So it is not authentic. It treats the other person as an object to extract things from, in a way.
It’s hard not to people-please if you grew up in a dysfunctional family. It feels vulnerable and dangerous. You almost have to people-please to succeed at work, especially in desirable fields. You risk criticism and misunderstanding if you step off the people-pleasing train. Most people need support to do it, like from a 12 step group where this is talked about and where authenticity is valued over outward success.
You have to give up the “do this to get that” thinking, which I have come to think of as the true “original sin.”
I could be wrong, but this is what I see as the block that might be getting in the way of authentic and lasting connection.
My response to the letter is that maybe the people you are dating don't actually want what you are selling, despite the fact they say they want it. This kind of goes back to Heather's point about our cultural fondness for strength.
I'm the LW. It ultimately doesn't matter at all about me or why anyone is doing what they're doing. What matters is that we need to work together to raise the bar for men, and to redefine what we expect of each other.
I love that you're engaging here, but part of the risk of engaging is that it becomes harder and harder to assert your central message. People observe and sense and intuit and feel their way towards a more vivid picture of what you're about, and each person is going to bring their own tangle of ideas and projections into that exchange. Your agenda splinters and blends in with dozens of other agendas.
Lisa, below, asks what this line really means: "You're hard to see clearly when you’re not leaping enough.” I'd argue that the meaning of that line is illustrated throughout this thread. The more you explain yourself, present additional evidence, clarify this or that point, justify your choices, and repeat the central thrust of your letter, the less we can see your true nature. Your gestures and your voice and your efforts to persuade us intellectually block us from getting a glimpse of your heart.
You're extremely polite about receiving input from others, but we're shown no evidence that anything in my response or their comments is sinking under your skin. That's understandable, of course: You didn't come here to get analyzed! You came here to talk about raising the bar on our discussions about men! I empathize with that agenda and support it. But along the way, we've been treated to a clearer portrait of why you might be struggling to connect with people in the real world in ways that feel satisfying and dependable.
On one pass of my edit, I almost cut the line "In my experience, people who can’t risk being misunderstood are often still sorting out exactly who they are." I didn't really have evidence that you couldn't risk being misunderstood, and I didn't want to lose your trust by describing something that didn't make sense. But something in my gut said, "This guy can't risk being misunderstood. That's what his man-related crusade is about, and that's what his relationship challenges are about." While I did and absolutely still do accept your challenge to change my bad habits around describing what men are/aren't capable of, my whole swerve into letting go of your agenda and surrendering to what the day is bringing you was an attempt to get you to show up and feel where you are without always delivering a detailed thesis on the subject.
You didn't come here for that message, so I'll drop it. I just want you to understand that, as another astute commenter mentioned, there's a point where you have to stop persuading and just show up and be the broken, scared person you are. For someone like you, that takes more than understanding WHY you should show yourself, and it takes more than just accepting yourself emotionally and intellectually. It takes a leap into the unknown that feels terrifying. It requires you to hear other people's words about you and try them on for size and see how they feel and if they feel VERY BAD, to ask yourself specifically why they feel bad, what are you afraid they're saying, what are you afraid that it means.
The fact that you're encountering input from strangers as more evidence that supports the thesis you arrived with tells us that this isn't a relational problem or a culture problem, it's a problem of repeatedly projecting your very carefully constructed argument onto people, places, and things that are treated like blank screens that reflect exactly what you want them to reflect. The feeling of interacting with someone who does that is dehumanizing, and people flee from it, usually just by following their gut instinct.
I want you to understand that everyone does this. I did it with my book about marriage, and now I'm finally humbled enough (because not in the publicity cycle!) to slow down and understand more about the real snags and flaws that people perceived in my story and in my worldview. Obviously I care much more about the book as a work of art than I do about how people might analyze me, just as you care more about your agenda, which is a perfectly sound one if you ask me, than you do about what random strangers on this newsletter think about your relationship troubles.
BUT! But. It's still good for me, a person who never wants to feel closed off from the world and never wants to stop growing, to learn from every single shred of emotion and thought that comes floating my way, even when it's a threat to some of my most treasured beliefs or ideals or defenses or ego-driven desires. I can reject things anytime I want, but I have to know why I reject them and what I'm building in their place. I have to ask myself if I'm merely protecting myself from something I'm afraid to face.
And most of all, I have to just stand still and be what I am, a pretty flawed and overexposed and unfinished human being, and I have to trust that it's not just good to stand still and do nothing and explain nothing, it's actually divine. It's divine to let the world in, as it is.
That takes a leap, every single day. It requires surrender. But the very best people can see you the most clearly when you're thoroughly surrendered, and the very best people aren't afraid of you in that state. They think it's beautiful.
I really do think you're a remarkable person and I wish you all the best. Thanks for being here and giving us so much of yourself, it's really been a pleasure. I know it's not that comfortable or even what you wanted, so I appreciate that you stuck around anyway.
I sensed the comments were getting a little unproductive, so I wasn't going to respond to comments after yesterday. But this one deserves a follow-up for several reasons. As a preface: I actually do feel very good about my behavior in the world. I do a lot make sure I'm doing the absolute best I can. I am certainly not perfect, and am always trying to get better, but most of the practical suggestions fell pretty flat. HOWEVER.
What struck me personally about your response yesterday was the suggestion to "let the waters take me" so to speak. The comments that engaged emotionally encouraged me to do this, too, but your response to my letter is full of tidbits that courageously lead by example.
I've actually already been getting crushed and dragged this week, and your words led me to lean into it more. Some recent experiences of both myself and others rejecting or shying away from kindness (not even all romantic!) have me near-catatonically sad and scared about our world's persistent inability to connect. You are right, I AM desperate for true connection, and not just for me – for everyone! So much so that I'm having trouble eating and thinking and sleeping this week.
Each time one of my romantic entanglements ends in the way I described, I am sad in the same way: two people who want to connect, and care about the same things, can't do that because the world has been cruel enough that one (OR OFTEN BOTH) of them can't trust kindness.
I felt a small version of that happening again and again in the comments. So many opportunities to connect! But our fear of trusting each other produces, again and again, our tendency (myself included) to focus on diagnosing individual failings rather than working together. What doesn't come through over the internet is the increasingly desperate hoarseness of my croaking "Please, please, let's just work together! Please."
I feel like right now the need for connection has never been greater in the world, and the danger of misplaced trust – both real and perceived – has never been higher. So many of us are reaching out for hugs, but our eyes are closed to brace for impact, and as a result we keep either missing each other or accidentally hitting each other in the face. The more you open your eyes, the more it almost gets worse, because you have to watch everyone hitting each other all the time, and can see how many great people run right past you. It's a stampede.
This has practical consequences that terrify me, too. We're seeing the consequences of our distrustful diagnosing play out all over the world, not just romantically, but politically, environmentally, and economically, too. The consequences, if we don't shift course somehow and work together, are enormous for our whole species.
All this to say, to the extent that I come across as desperate in the comments: good. We all should be that desperate to connect. And I'm heartbroken and terrified that we can't or won't be. So my hope is that I come across as desperate to encourage people to put down their weapons, to reassure them that they don't need them, and EVEN IF THEY STILL FUCKING WANT THEM GODDAMMIT, to work together, anyway.
As the closing lines of my letter say: I want that for everyone, and I’m trying to do everything I can to make it happen. Will you help me?
Hallelujah. I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. In fact, I was just writing:
"Passion itself is fading because the last few years have been so disheartening to the sensitive, so infuriatingly illogical to the argumentative, so dark, so doomed, so alienating. We’re all in some variety of post-traumatic state, and even though most of us have learned a lot from the jolt of it, it’s impossible to collect ourselves fully in the face of what just happened and what might come next. We’re living through one of those eras when the only way to accurately capture where we are is through melodramatic overstatement that sounds borderline unhinged. Everything else doesn’t touch it, doesn’t even come close.
And mostly, our words fail us. We have to recognize that and let it be. There’s too much in the air, too much under our skin. Allowing the deep waves of sadness and longing and regret and desire incited by our modern reality to penetrate the straight lines of our conscious minds is a first step toward finding joy and connection in this world, in spite of everything."
Vulnerability is a prerequisite to deep connection and also to recovering from the shit storm we've all been through whether we consciously acknowledge it or not. But people are struggling mightily to be vulnerable right now.
Actually BEING VULNERABLE out in the open is the best way I know to change that. So thanks for courageously showing yourself here. I see you and hear you and I'm glad to know you. xoxox
You are honestly so great. In your initial reply to me, you say "sometimes I don’t love acknowledging how much things have changed because it makes me feel like I used to make something rare and special and now I just do a job that countless other people are also doing."
I'm sure you've thought of this, but at least in my case, whatever amounts of courage and vulnerability I am capable of in this thread are due in significant part to you and your words, to your unabashed encouragement of these traits. I'd argue something similar more broadly: that the decreasing uniqueness of your work is BECAUSE OF IT, not in spite of it.
Another way to say it is: let's pretend for a minute that you are just a fossil. That means, at minimum, you were an essential part of producing whatever bounty we now see. And you know the other thing about fossils? They're still REALLY FUCKING COOL to the right people when they stumble across them today. Even if you've found other fossils before, and even though we have zoos now.
And the oldest fossils are ALWAYS the rarest and coolest of all, because they were there first.
I’m super curious what specifically these women have communicated to LW and what routines have led to the disappearances/agitation. Not that it’s my business, but it’s pretty rare to have that consistent level of insight into what exactly is tanking every relationship! Especially in that starting-out phase.
Quality men, like quality women, often find that being all you are dramatically shrinks your dating pool. Be patient. Ultimately it pays off.
I question whether negative or stereotypical portrayals of men or women are of import to people with loving hearts. You’re not “that guy” and the right woman for you will see through any societal debris. That Polly (HH) has called out “that guy” on occasion when specifically called for is not an attack on you or other great men that I can see.
I’m half wondering if this entire eloquent and vulnerable response wasn’t just the usual reflexive emotional work by a woman in response to a man in distress, and I’m gonna have to think about that first. Meanwhile, it was a good response to a letter that began well, had a good twist, drew me in, and then lost me at the part where women get him wrong because he’s too good to be true. The last time I said something similar about myself I was twenty years younger and being enabled by people who actually let me believe it. None of us are that good. And I definitely feel wary around anyone who allows themselves to say such things about themselves, including me. I have set my own alarm bells off many a time!
But maybe this letter was a good effort, a good start. PS- Please don’t become enraged. PPS- it’s telling that I wanted to say something but was frankly afraid to, and am now using dark humor to frame that.
I agree with you! None of us are that good. I have been out with a few guys in the past who were like this and they made it seem like everything I said and did was somehow magical. It made me think well wait until you **actually** get to know me - are you gonna be disappointed?? I feel like the women he dated must have felt the same way like oh no this guy has put me on a pedestal and that's a bit of a red flag. It's not about being a good buy or a bad guy...it's just that ultimately we want someone real and someone who acts like they are that good appears unreal.
Like I said in another comment, I've never run away from someone who seemed too good to be true till they actually turned out to be so. As for being put on a pedestal, that's never very comfortable, obviously. My late husband kind of did that to me in the beginning, and I let him get used to me long enough (like, a few years! luckily I was busy enough with my work to not mind) to disabuse him of his illusions, and he didn't object. We were together for altogether fourteen years before things took a turn, possibly just because he was getting old and insecure? I'll never know. We got married just a few months before he died, and it was eerie how immediately he began saying things like, "now that we're married, you..." and criticizing me about the housekeeping. Mind-boggling! He was not perfect by a long shot. But he definitely treated me wayyyyy more like a fellow human being he did not have to compete with or struggle for power with than any man I knew before or since him, and for way longer. So, a good man is not impossible to find. And a good relationship isn't impervious to the wear and tear of patriarchal convention always biting at your ankles, either. Not to mention, not all relationships need to go on forever to be considered a success.
LW here. I've responded to your criticism in more depth a couple of other places in the comments, but it's very well-taken. It was an oversimplification of the problem, and rightfully has people reaching for their alarm bells.
I have to say, I've never run away from someone who seemed like they might be too good to be true until they turned out to actually be too good to be true.
CJ, this is neither here nor there but just say I used to see your work on The Hairpin, I’ve followed your New Yorker cartoon career, and I so enjoy all your work, so it was such a nice thing (and not so much of a surprise, since people with good taste gravitate to people with good taste) to see you on here! That is all.
Amazing letter + response. As a woman probably around LW's age, I will say that I've become resistant of men who openly tout their emotional intelligence and other wonderful sensitivities. It used to be the opposite, but after falling for a guy who was always mentioning how important integrity was to him, and then later finding out he was cheating on his girlfriend with me, I started to pay more attention. The kindest, most honest and emotional men were never the ones always talking about their kindness, honesty, and emotion. They just were. Or, if pressed, they'd say, "I try my best but I'm sure I could be better." So when I read that women are dismissive of LW because they don't believe he's real - my first thought was - there's something about his behavior that's coming across as disingenuous or not real, and it's not just how great he is ;) And if that's not true, he may be choosing women who genuinely prefer to date jerks (I have some friends who will openly admit to this). So *then* the question is - why?
I am the LW, and I want to for sure endorse this skepticism. Your points are spot-on. The setup comes across as self-centered and oversimplified, to be sure, which rightfully is grating at people, especially in a letter about being open to complexity...
I absolutely try to do what you say in actual life, but that doesn't come across well.
Instead of talking about it to women who get suspicious, maybe tell all your male friends how you do it, maybe that will help improve the world, too! :)
<3 I'm rooting for you!
Hmm, there is something that feels a little bit off about this whole situation.
I'm zeroing in on this key passage in the original letter, that women "disbelieve I am real. They think there must be a catch, and attempt to apply the same oversimplified and unambitious routines to me that they do to other men. Somewhat confusingly to me, they become agitated rather than excited when these routines don’t fit me."
LW BRO, I see that you are haunting the comments and feel the urge to reply again and again. I'm wondering if these women are getting agitated because of your communication style--the way you act and speak when you feel uncomfortable and a little bit defensive. Like, it's not really what you are saying but just that you are saying sooo much of it. It's a lot of words and arguments and "see my previous comments" to sort through.
I get it, I also am a person who says a lot of words! But sometimes if you say more and more and more, people reach a tipping point where they stop seeing it as a fun conversation, and start seeing it as an overwhelming amount of information.
In a worst-case scenario, this defensive overexplaining comes across as emotionally needy, attention seeking, or even controlling. Because of this, many people (many of whom are women) will back away from someone who is overexplaining themselves, because they're nervous about being emotionally and intellectually drained.
I'm NOT saying you are like this, or that you do these things!!! But you might be accidentally REMINDING people of other bad experiences they have had with other people. And sometimes just a teeny bit of reminding is all it takes to make people uncomfortable.
Women who have been bullied or drained by OTHER men who came before you--men who got what they wanted by arguing things to death and always having the last word--might be particularly likely to back away from that defensive overexplaining energy from a man, especially a man they are considering as a romantic partner.
I'm not trying to roast you or accuse you of anything, I'm just trying to sincerely offer helpful input based on your letter and comments. I want you to know that I have very close friends who are men and women, as well as nonbinary people, trans people, etc. I also work with autistic and ADHD teens and adults of every gender. So from my perspective, I don't think this is a gender issue at all, I think it's just a social skills issue that all humans have to learn.
Have you considered asking your close, trusted friends for some honest input? Like, ask them if there's anything you could do differently that would make people (men and women) feel more comfortable communicating with you?
Very well said. BRO, I think a lot of people can relate to maybe not being aware when you are being overwhelming. (I’ve certainly had to battle that tendency in myself for most of my life, and fwiw I’m neurodivergent). This might be a good comment to take to heart and see if it can help inform your future interactions with partners of any gender. Yes we have a lot of societal problems with toxic masculinity, but it doesn’t quite add up that every single person would leave just because you’re the first kind person they’ve met. I know that might be hard to hear… : /
First kind man* I should say
I want to start by saying that this is a very considerate, kind, and well-articulated comment. Thank you for it.
I will point out, in response, that multiple other comments specifically called me out for NOT responding to comments. There’s no way to win.
That’s the reason I didn’t ask for advice from Polly or anyone else about my behavior: because it’s not the issue, and explicitly not the point of my letter. It’s that we need to work together to make things better for everyone, even if I’m royally fucking things up somehow.
Everyone keeps getting distracted by giving me dating advice. We’re ignoring the forest for the trees. I’ll redirect people back to the forest all day if I have to, because the forest is the problem.
Well, if the forest is toxic masculinity, we can’t really address that since most people here are women.
What we *can* help address is the problems that letter-writers come to Ask Polly with. You have a problem in that you keep encountering the same behavior from partners you date, men and women. You’re assuming that everyone breaks up with you solely because men have been unkind to them, while you alone are kind to them — the first kind man they’ve ever met, in fact, and it throws them off.
People are trying to help give you perspective on that, since that’s an actionable way to help, and you’re not allowing an ounce of insight in.
I just don’t see the point of writing in a letter to say “So many men are mean but good men exist too and why can’t women be aware of that? I, for one, am extremely good.” That can’t have been your point! And if your point is “Hey, female readership, your expectations of men are too low and that’s why men have been so bad,” my question is: Why aren’t you talking to your male friends about the ways in which they’re not measuring up? Why did you bring that complaint to this space? I write all this with a strong suspicion I will be frustrated with your response, unless you’ve suddenly changed your tack since yesterday, which is unlikely…
I'm generally done responding to comments, largely because the persistent distrust of me, personally, seems to increasingly be crowding out productive collaboration, which is my entire point. As I have kept saying, the point is not about ME and whether these women choose ME. They can do whatever they want.
But you are engaged enough that I want to point you to a – to me at least – pretty fantastic exchange between Heather and I from this morning that I hope may help a bit, in a non-frustrating way: https://askpolly.substack.com/p/men-arent-as-limited-as-you-think/comment/7146229?s=r
I think some people are going to keep being frustrated no matter what, which is their right! But I would at least ask you to think, in the context of this morning's exchange, about why you would assume I am NOT talking to my male friends about this constantly. And that I explicitly stated why I wrote my letter – and to Polly specifically – in the original letter. And to ask why you think you can't address toxic masculinity, even though you're a woman?
I already read your exchange with Heather from this morning. Sure let’s ask women to fix toxic masculinity, and while we’re at it, let’s ask Black people to fix white supremacy, and the poor to fight domination by the rich. It’s just because their expectations are too low.
I don’t have any energy anymore. You’ll grow, or you won’t.
I am going to request that you stop replying to me now. If you truly respect women, then you’ll stop.
Hi Polly and BRO,
I really like that you came back to respond - it’s brave to engage with so many strangers who suddenly have access to your most intimate thoughts and fears!
Just one thing popped out at me - I used to feel a lot like you in my 20s (I am a woman), and now I’ve come to realise that it came from moving abroad for studies into a very competitive, male-dominated environment, and also culturally very different from my home country.
I spent a lot of time moulding myself into what I thought was just right - the girl with extra food in her office, good listener, kind, but also smart and competent, but never proud of her smartness and competence, and also not scared to be vulnerable, but not so vulnerable it pressure on anyone else, blah blah! And then just couldn’t understand why men didn’t appreciate how perfect I was!
And honestly, I was just fine-tuning myself and my reactions to suit other people all the time, which can make you very rigid - subconsciously, you want other people to make the same effort for you. And then you’re not easy in your skin, and not accepting of others.
So I think you are probably a great guys, just - you don’t need to prove it all the time :-) And honestly, most people are not naturally aggressive and are creative - I would go so far as to say all people, all genders. The few that appear that way are probably battling some kind of pain. So to paraphrase other Polly advice - just be kind to yourself, allow your own needs and those of others!
Sorry about the long comment, but past me really relates to you. Also, if some of your fear is driven by a sense of “now or never” for finding the right person - don’t worry, it’ll work out!
This is a highly perceptive comment, I wish I could like it twice - and I think it's interesting and quite telling that the LW hasn't really engaged with the content of it in his answer. I feel like the LW's answer might be a really good illustration of the point that Tara is trying to make - saying what you think people want to hear rather than "allowing your own needs and those of others". BRO, what do you make of Tara's suggestion?
See my response to your other comment.
This is very sweet and thoughtful. Thank you for it! The women in these comments are proving my point over and over that women are lovely and deserve better. It's hard out here for all of us. If nothing else, I appreciate knowing that someone else in the world empathizes with me!
this is such a masterclass in support, pushback, and gooooood shit.
Hey bro!
You could be this guy I dated briefly. He would have described himself in similar terms. He was in his 50s, and I'm not sure he's specifically aware he's neurodivergent, but everything else tracks. Kind, vulnerable, good job, lots of friends, takes care of people, including his aging aunt and mother. Childhood trauma. Old-school hacker.
Our first date was phenomenal. He took me to a restaurant where he knew the owners, and asked them to bring out some fabulous dish which wasn't on the menu. He pulled out a bottle of organic wine which was made by friends of his. He asked me intelligent questions and listened. He took me home, gave me the boxed-up leftovers and a hug, and left.
Hallelujah!! A unicorn!
So what happened?
As I learned subsequently, there is a vast gulf between learning to feel one's feelings, and knowing how to regulate them. It's not possible to be a good and present partner to another person if you can't do BOTH.
What happened was, his aunt died. She was 92. She had severe dementia and had been declining physically for a decade. He loved his aunt and took fabulous attentive care of her for all that time.
His response to her death was as extreme as if it had been totally unexpected. He spiraled into a chaotic grief state which alarmed me. He had a history of depression, and a crash seemed imminent.
I asked him what he was doing to regulate. As in eating regularly, sleeping, seeing friends, seeing a therapist. I had just gotten out of a relationship with a man who had no room for both his feelings and mine, and I was not going to walk that path again.
He became extremely defensive and argued that he was "not my ex." He defended and defended and defended. He wouldn't let it go. For days.
He argued, Bro, in much the way you're doing here. Not knowing when it's time to take in what someone says, let them have their own feelings, and move on.
That was all I needed to know. Because what I was asking, in effect, was, "can you regulate your own feelings, in real time, well enough to be responsive to mine?"
And the answer was no.
Ok sorry but I can't tear myself away from this -- the one question I wish I had just asked Bro from the start is this: if a magical omniscient being presented itself in front of you and told you that the reason things didn't work out with women/men you've dated was actually NOT due to society/culture/expectations of men/their upbringing/past experiences and instead had to do with you, how would you feel? And if you had to guess, what would those reasons be?
When people break up with me, I usually try to get a good sense for why (and if I can't get a straight answer, I think about moments of tension in the relationship and what I might have done to cause them). You could say I look for reasons to blame myself and that isn't the healthiest behavior, BUT it has helped me understand what people I like value, where my (many!) flaws are, and what kinds of people I should probably steer clear of in the future.
I know you don't want to talk about your dating life anymore, and no need to respond to this. But I have a few friends whom I adore but also can see how they might be difficult to date quite clearly -- and yet, when they get broken up with, it is always the other person's fault/timing/anything but turning inward and reflecting.
Part of the whole deal with being a member of an oppressor class is that the oppressed have the right to talk shit about you. It may seem unfair. As a white person, I don't love when POC say [insert negative generalization about white people here] because I'm an individual, how can you make this generalization without thinking about meeee (please exempt me from this, because i'm better??) But part of growth is learning not to take things like that personally. Or, do take them personally, if you must. But then you have to sit with it and feel the pain of it without getting overwhelmed and lashing out.
I’m not sure if this is allowed, but I am the writer of this letter. I wanted to respond publicly since you responded publicly. It seems unfair for only one of us to hide in anonymity, especially about a topic like this. Plus someone challenged me today to take frightening leaps ;-)
First, thank you for the incredibly thoughtful reply. Today, this letter is – as you say – exactly what I needed when I needed it. I had to clear my tears before composing this. Your ability to understand people from brief blocks of black-and-white prose is remarkable. Your advice is something I will cherish for a long time.
There may be other things that occur to me later, but I wanted to respond to a few things:
1. The point you raise about my insinuation that it’s the women who can’t see me and not anything wrong me. The spirit of this criticism is well-taken, and is something I thought about as I wrote the letter.
That said, I still oversimplified in my statement of the problem, ironically in a letter asking you to be less oversimplified…oof. I'm sorry for that. I certainly don’t think I’m perfect, and I don’t at all think these women are wrong to be highly skeptical.
I think you un-simplified my oversimplified explanation very well, so thank you for that.
2. I actually do think all men, or perhaps more accurately all people, are some combination of uncreative and aggressive. I am certainly not immune to this statement, and they are not in principle bad things.
I do think the majority of men have these traits either left unchecked or outrightly encouraged throughout life, and that leads to a number of problematic behaviors. Right now, I think it’s important to say both parts: that this is true, and that it doesn’t have to be/we don’t want it to be. For anyone the statement applies to, and for all of the reasons you mention.
And I think the world would be much better off if it were defined by people who embrace the things you and I both celebrate: softness, vulnerability, caring deeply. Right now the vast majority of those people are still women, but I hope that continues to change.
3. I really hope I didn’t come across as blame-y in my tone, to either you or the women in question. My intention was to be collaborative; my blame fingers are pointed squarely at our current society and culture, and no individual person. We’re all just winging it out here, and I know we’re all doing the best we can.
Even your replies that have naggy parts for me are still well-intentioned and helpful. All of the women I collectively refer to are pretty outrightly lovely people, even if it didn't work out with us. I didn't mean to imply anything otherwise.
The emotional motivations behind your interest in painting men as rigid and self-protective are understandable and relatable. And they are no less emotional and self-protective than my interest in writing letters about imagining non-rigid men :-)
Thank you, again and again and again.
Thanks for this, BRO! *fist bump* I didn't think your tone was blamey at all. I do wonder why women would be skeptical of you, since you sound pretty open and smart. What do they say when they're backing away, for example? What reasons do they give for it? It was hard to understand that part of your letter, and... SINCE YOU'RE HERE...
The actual back-away texts (and it's always a text, isn't it?) are usually some formulaic AI breakup-bot text like "We want different things/it's not you it's me/I'm just really focusing on me right now, you're lovely though, goodbye." Which would be instructive, except they are often abrupt and total non-sequiturs to whatever is going on (i.e. not conspicuously following "what are we" convos and the like).
I am hesitant to diagnose anyone, but I think a lot of it is age and trauma. I'm now in my mid-30s, and tend to date 3-4ish years on either side of me. As I said, I'm a recovering trauma bb, so I tend to attract similar types.
I am also hesitant to puff myself up after my botched-ish setup in the letter, but I've had explicit conversations with essentially all of these women pre-exit about how I'm redefining what they thought was possible with male romantic partners, and how interactions with me have helped them realize they have trauma that they had suppressed (and I've gotten the entire gamut of Man-Caused Traumas by now). I give my rough age because I think in the 25-35 age range I've dated, I'm often not just the first kind man, but one of the first kind people at all, that these women have experienced.
I mean, just throwing this out there-- incompatibility doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong.
If someone breaks up w/you saying "it's not you, it's me," it doesn't necessarily mean that there's something to diagnose--either for you or the other person.
Every time I've broken up with someone, or declined a next date with "it's not you, it's me," I guess a more accurate truth would be something *did* put me off, but it seems unwise to say what. It's shallow, or, conversely, may indicate something acutely dangerous about the guy.
People can't "diagnose" what your deal is, not because you're too good to be true, but because it's going to be something different for each different person. And it's probably not worth changing about yourself.
Also: I think there are far more non-aggressive people out there than you might think. It's not a trait that's necessarily pervasive. It really seems cultural how widespread aggression is.
That jumped out at me, anyway.
Hmm I have to say I think what you are experiencing is fairly normal in the dating world. I understand the comfort in pathologizing it, but I’m not sure you can be so certain from those interactions. I’ve dated some kind men that I just haven’t been attracted to (and some that I have!) I would sooner chalk it up to chemistry than paint women and men with such broad strokes.
I understand what you are saying. There are many women (and men) whom I have no chemistry with. MANY. The vast majority, even. I am 100% certain that's not the issue I'm dealing with in these particular cases, for a variety of reasons. Not least because all of these conversations happen after weeks, if not months, of dating, and even after moving past exclusivity/commitment and the like.
I can relate firsthand to the trauma that's called up the first time you experience a truly kind person. It's A LOT. Couple that with all of the heartbreakingly bizarre expectations of perfection I've heard these women express feeling like they have to conform to in romantic settings (example: worrying I'll lose attraction to them bc they have COVID and are coughing), and I think it's a one-two punch that leads to an understandable panic exit. Then shame takes over and that's that.
So the solution isn't really that they have to change anything, it's generally that men need to stop being shitty. And after hearing from these same women multiple times over that "the bar is way too low for men," I think a big part of the solution is to try to raise the bar.
BRO, I mean this in a kind way, but aren't you falling back into your "I'm too good/kind to be true" narrative here? I can't help thinking there must be a bit more to it than that. Can you tell us more about this from your original letter: "They think there must be a catch, and attempt to apply the same oversimplified and unambitious routines to me that they do to other men. Somewhat confusingly to me, they become agitated rather than excited when these routines don’t fit me, and often abruptly leave." What do you mean by "oversimplified and unambitious routines" and your partners getting "agitated"?
I'm making the assumption that your kindness in relationships is authentic and that your words match your actions. I don't think I would automatically make that assumption if you were one of the first kind people I'd experienced.
Were you surprised by what they said in these pre-exit conversations? Or had you kind of already guessed?
Initially I was surprised. But as I understood my own story more, and heard more stories, I came to be less surprised. I am no longer surprised, but always heartbroken, at the sheer volume of negative stories I hear. It's everywhere, and constant.
I certainly HOPE I am not the first kind person they've encountered, but some have said so explicitly, and some have implied as much in other things they've said.
I want to reiterate my refrain, though: none of this is about me. It's about us imagining what we want men to look like, and then holding ALL of us to that standard.
Also, PLOT TWIST that I should have included in the letter: I also occasionally date men, and they say many of the exact same things...
I loved Heather’s response, but this line stood out for me: you’re ”hard to see clearly when you’re not leaping enough.” I’d love to hear more about this - what makes us hard to see when we’re not leaping enough? (Speaking as someone who’s been avoiding leaping for a while)
Hi Lisa. Okay bear with me. Even though your comment is RIGHT BELOW my response to BRO, which includes my response to your question here, I've found that these threads can be hard to trace if you hit the wrong sorting button, so I'm just go to REPEAT MY ENTIRE COMMENT FROM ABOVE to make sure you see it. I'm also going to try to write a stand alone column on this subject for tomorrow, so stay tuned and thanks for the inspiration! xo
---------
To the LW:
I love that you're engaging here, but part of the risk of engaging is that it becomes harder and harder to assert your central message. People observe and sense and intuit and feel their way towards a more vivid picture of what you're about, and each person is going to bring their own tangle of ideas and projections into that exchange. Your agenda splinters and blends in with dozens of other agendas.
Lisa, below, asks what this line really means: "You're hard to see clearly when you’re not leaping enough.” I'd argue that the meaning of that line is illustrated throughout this thread. The more you explain yourself, present additional evidence, clarify this or that point, justify your choices, and repeat the central thrust of your letter, the less we can see your true nature. Your gestures and your voice and your efforts to persuade us intellectually block us from getting a glimpse of your heart.
You're extremely polite about receiving input from others, but we're shown no evidence that anything in my response or their comments is sinking under your skin. That's understandable, of course: You didn't come here to get analyzed! You came here to talk about raising the bar on our discussions about men! I empathize with that agenda and support it. But along the way, we've been treated to a clearer portrait of why you might be struggling to connect with people in the real world in ways that feel satisfying and dependable.
On one pass of my edit, I almost cut the line "In my experience, people who can’t risk being misunderstood are often still sorting out exactly who they are." I didn't really have evidence that you couldn't risk being misunderstood, and I didn't want to lose your trust by describing something that didn't make sense. But something in my gut said, "This guy can't risk being misunderstood. That's what his man-related crusade is about, and that's what his relationship challenges are about." While I did and absolutely still do accept your challenge to change my bad habits around describing what men are/aren't capable of, my whole swerve into letting go of your agenda and surrendering to what the day is bringing you was an attempt to get you to show up and feel where you are without always delivering a detailed thesis on the subject.
You didn't come here for that message, so I'll drop it. I just want you to understand that, as another astute commenter mentioned, there's a point where you have to stop persuading and just show up and be the broken, scared person you are. For someone like you, that takes more than understanding WHY you should show yourself, and it takes more than just accepting yourself emotionally and intellectually. It takes a leap into the unknown that feels terrifying. It requires you to hear other people's words about you and try them on for size and see how they feel and if they feel VERY BAD, to ask yourself specifically why they feel bad, what are you afraid they're saying, what are you afraid that it means.
The fact that you're encountering input from strangers as more evidence that supports the thesis you arrived with tells us that this isn't a relational problem or a culture problem, it's a problem of repeatedly projecting your very carefully constructed argument onto people, places, and things that are treated like blank screens that reflect exactly what you want them to reflect. The feeling of interacting with someone who does that is dehumanizing, and people flee from it, usually just by following their gut instinct.
I want you to understand that everyone does this. I did it with my book about marriage, and now I'm finally humbled enough (because not in the publicity cycle!) to slow down and understand more about the real snags and flaws that people perceived in my story and in my worldview. Obviously I care much more about the book as a work of art than I do about how people might analyze me, just as you care more about your agenda, which is a perfectly sound one if you ask me, than you do about what random strangers on this newsletter think about your relationship troubles.
BUT! But. It's still good for me, a person who never wants to feel closed off from the world and never wants to stop growing, to learn from every single shred of emotion and thought that comes floating my way, even when it's a threat to some of my most treasured beliefs or ideals or defenses or ego-driven desires. I can reject things anytime I want, but I have to know why I reject them and what I'm building in their place. I have to ask myself if I'm merely protecting myself from something I'm afraid to face.
And most of all, I have to just stand still and be what I am, a pretty flawed and overexposed and unfinished human being, and I have to trust that it's not just good to stand still and do nothing and explain nothing, it's actually divine. It's divine to let the world in, as it is.
That takes a leap, every single day. It requires surrender. But the very best people can see you the most clearly when you're thoroughly surrendered, and the very best people aren't afraid of you in that state. They think it's beautiful.
I really do think you're a remarkable person and I wish you all the best. Thanks for being here and giving us so much of yourself, it's really been a pleasure. I know it's not that comfortable or even what you wanted, so I appreciate that you stuck around anyway.
Thanks Heather! No, I hadn't seen your response to BRO - thanks for repeating it. What a wonderful response, and also what I needed to hear today.
This feels so right on. When I pondered this thread last night, I kept thinking about vulnerability. I feel gently called out, too!
I also would love to hear more about that line… I got it intuitively but not quite intellectually
related-- a lot of things about man-woman relationships were clarified for me when I read the novel Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters. in the book, the characters are very aware of how their genders are material to their relationships, and how certain relationship dynamics confirm or challenge the storytelling of one's gender (ex: one trans woman character seeks out toxic relationships with cis men bc she correctly identifies that as part of how femininity is constructed in our culture).
I'm wondering if these women "run away" from you because part of their storytelling about what it means to be a woman has to do with putting up with masculine bullshit, whether they'll admit it or not. in which case, I'm sorry! these women just haven't untaught themselves that aspect of relationships yet.
I think you're very right. See my reply to HH above; they're usually pretty clear before things end that they are having a lot of cognitive dissonance as a result of their expectations with male partners. I want to be clear it's not their fault at all. It's a collective problem we're all trying to solve. We'll get there.
Women who don’t trust men got that way by being hurt, badly, multiple times, by men. And told that it was their fault. Read Am I The Asshole on Reddit to see story after story of a woman accepting abuse and still wondering if she is at fault.
Trying to be a good man sounds like an unquestionably good thing. But trying to look like a good anything can veer off into people-pleasing very easily. What’s wrong with people-pleasing is that it comes from a desire to appear a certain way to get a certain outcome (to get something good or to avoid something bad). So it is not authentic. It treats the other person as an object to extract things from, in a way.
It’s hard not to people-please if you grew up in a dysfunctional family. It feels vulnerable and dangerous. You almost have to people-please to succeed at work, especially in desirable fields. You risk criticism and misunderstanding if you step off the people-pleasing train. Most people need support to do it, like from a 12 step group where this is talked about and where authenticity is valued over outward success.
You have to give up the “do this to get that” thinking, which I have come to think of as the true “original sin.”
I could be wrong, but this is what I see as the block that might be getting in the way of authentic and lasting connection.
My response to the letter is that maybe the people you are dating don't actually want what you are selling, despite the fact they say they want it. This kind of goes back to Heather's point about our cultural fondness for strength.
I'm the LW. It ultimately doesn't matter at all about me or why anyone is doing what they're doing. What matters is that we need to work together to raise the bar for men, and to redefine what we expect of each other.
I love that you're engaging here, but part of the risk of engaging is that it becomes harder and harder to assert your central message. People observe and sense and intuit and feel their way towards a more vivid picture of what you're about, and each person is going to bring their own tangle of ideas and projections into that exchange. Your agenda splinters and blends in with dozens of other agendas.
Lisa, below, asks what this line really means: "You're hard to see clearly when you’re not leaping enough.” I'd argue that the meaning of that line is illustrated throughout this thread. The more you explain yourself, present additional evidence, clarify this or that point, justify your choices, and repeat the central thrust of your letter, the less we can see your true nature. Your gestures and your voice and your efforts to persuade us intellectually block us from getting a glimpse of your heart.
You're extremely polite about receiving input from others, but we're shown no evidence that anything in my response or their comments is sinking under your skin. That's understandable, of course: You didn't come here to get analyzed! You came here to talk about raising the bar on our discussions about men! I empathize with that agenda and support it. But along the way, we've been treated to a clearer portrait of why you might be struggling to connect with people in the real world in ways that feel satisfying and dependable.
On one pass of my edit, I almost cut the line "In my experience, people who can’t risk being misunderstood are often still sorting out exactly who they are." I didn't really have evidence that you couldn't risk being misunderstood, and I didn't want to lose your trust by describing something that didn't make sense. But something in my gut said, "This guy can't risk being misunderstood. That's what his man-related crusade is about, and that's what his relationship challenges are about." While I did and absolutely still do accept your challenge to change my bad habits around describing what men are/aren't capable of, my whole swerve into letting go of your agenda and surrendering to what the day is bringing you was an attempt to get you to show up and feel where you are without always delivering a detailed thesis on the subject.
You didn't come here for that message, so I'll drop it. I just want you to understand that, as another astute commenter mentioned, there's a point where you have to stop persuading and just show up and be the broken, scared person you are. For someone like you, that takes more than understanding WHY you should show yourself, and it takes more than just accepting yourself emotionally and intellectually. It takes a leap into the unknown that feels terrifying. It requires you to hear other people's words about you and try them on for size and see how they feel and if they feel VERY BAD, to ask yourself specifically why they feel bad, what are you afraid they're saying, what are you afraid that it means.
The fact that you're encountering input from strangers as more evidence that supports the thesis you arrived with tells us that this isn't a relational problem or a culture problem, it's a problem of repeatedly projecting your very carefully constructed argument onto people, places, and things that are treated like blank screens that reflect exactly what you want them to reflect. The feeling of interacting with someone who does that is dehumanizing, and people flee from it, usually just by following their gut instinct.
I want you to understand that everyone does this. I did it with my book about marriage, and now I'm finally humbled enough (because not in the publicity cycle!) to slow down and understand more about the real snags and flaws that people perceived in my story and in my worldview. Obviously I care much more about the book as a work of art than I do about how people might analyze me, just as you care more about your agenda, which is a perfectly sound one if you ask me, than you do about what random strangers on this newsletter think about your relationship troubles.
BUT! But. It's still good for me, a person who never wants to feel closed off from the world and never wants to stop growing, to learn from every single shred of emotion and thought that comes floating my way, even when it's a threat to some of my most treasured beliefs or ideals or defenses or ego-driven desires. I can reject things anytime I want, but I have to know why I reject them and what I'm building in their place. I have to ask myself if I'm merely protecting myself from something I'm afraid to face.
And most of all, I have to just stand still and be what I am, a pretty flawed and overexposed and unfinished human being, and I have to trust that it's not just good to stand still and do nothing and explain nothing, it's actually divine. It's divine to let the world in, as it is.
That takes a leap, every single day. It requires surrender. But the very best people can see you the most clearly when you're thoroughly surrendered, and the very best people aren't afraid of you in that state. They think it's beautiful.
I really do think you're a remarkable person and I wish you all the best. Thanks for being here and giving us so much of yourself, it's really been a pleasure. I know it's not that comfortable or even what you wanted, so I appreciate that you stuck around anyway.
I sensed the comments were getting a little unproductive, so I wasn't going to respond to comments after yesterday. But this one deserves a follow-up for several reasons. As a preface: I actually do feel very good about my behavior in the world. I do a lot make sure I'm doing the absolute best I can. I am certainly not perfect, and am always trying to get better, but most of the practical suggestions fell pretty flat. HOWEVER.
What struck me personally about your response yesterday was the suggestion to "let the waters take me" so to speak. The comments that engaged emotionally encouraged me to do this, too, but your response to my letter is full of tidbits that courageously lead by example.
I've actually already been getting crushed and dragged this week, and your words led me to lean into it more. Some recent experiences of both myself and others rejecting or shying away from kindness (not even all romantic!) have me near-catatonically sad and scared about our world's persistent inability to connect. You are right, I AM desperate for true connection, and not just for me – for everyone! So much so that I'm having trouble eating and thinking and sleeping this week.
Each time one of my romantic entanglements ends in the way I described, I am sad in the same way: two people who want to connect, and care about the same things, can't do that because the world has been cruel enough that one (OR OFTEN BOTH) of them can't trust kindness.
I felt a small version of that happening again and again in the comments. So many opportunities to connect! But our fear of trusting each other produces, again and again, our tendency (myself included) to focus on diagnosing individual failings rather than working together. What doesn't come through over the internet is the increasingly desperate hoarseness of my croaking "Please, please, let's just work together! Please."
I feel like right now the need for connection has never been greater in the world, and the danger of misplaced trust – both real and perceived – has never been higher. So many of us are reaching out for hugs, but our eyes are closed to brace for impact, and as a result we keep either missing each other or accidentally hitting each other in the face. The more you open your eyes, the more it almost gets worse, because you have to watch everyone hitting each other all the time, and can see how many great people run right past you. It's a stampede.
This has practical consequences that terrify me, too. We're seeing the consequences of our distrustful diagnosing play out all over the world, not just romantically, but politically, environmentally, and economically, too. The consequences, if we don't shift course somehow and work together, are enormous for our whole species.
All this to say, to the extent that I come across as desperate in the comments: good. We all should be that desperate to connect. And I'm heartbroken and terrified that we can't or won't be. So my hope is that I come across as desperate to encourage people to put down their weapons, to reassure them that they don't need them, and EVEN IF THEY STILL FUCKING WANT THEM GODDAMMIT, to work together, anyway.
As the closing lines of my letter say: I want that for everyone, and I’m trying to do everything I can to make it happen. Will you help me?
Hallelujah. I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. In fact, I was just writing:
"Passion itself is fading because the last few years have been so disheartening to the sensitive, so infuriatingly illogical to the argumentative, so dark, so doomed, so alienating. We’re all in some variety of post-traumatic state, and even though most of us have learned a lot from the jolt of it, it’s impossible to collect ourselves fully in the face of what just happened and what might come next. We’re living through one of those eras when the only way to accurately capture where we are is through melodramatic overstatement that sounds borderline unhinged. Everything else doesn’t touch it, doesn’t even come close.
And mostly, our words fail us. We have to recognize that and let it be. There’s too much in the air, too much under our skin. Allowing the deep waves of sadness and longing and regret and desire incited by our modern reality to penetrate the straight lines of our conscious minds is a first step toward finding joy and connection in this world, in spite of everything."
Vulnerability is a prerequisite to deep connection and also to recovering from the shit storm we've all been through whether we consciously acknowledge it or not. But people are struggling mightily to be vulnerable right now.
Actually BEING VULNERABLE out in the open is the best way I know to change that. So thanks for courageously showing yourself here. I see you and hear you and I'm glad to know you. xoxox
You are honestly so great. In your initial reply to me, you say "sometimes I don’t love acknowledging how much things have changed because it makes me feel like I used to make something rare and special and now I just do a job that countless other people are also doing."
I'm sure you've thought of this, but at least in my case, whatever amounts of courage and vulnerability I am capable of in this thread are due in significant part to you and your words, to your unabashed encouragement of these traits. I'd argue something similar more broadly: that the decreasing uniqueness of your work is BECAUSE OF IT, not in spite of it.
Another way to say it is: let's pretend for a minute that you are just a fossil. That means, at minimum, you were an essential part of producing whatever bounty we now see. And you know the other thing about fossils? They're still REALLY FUCKING COOL to the right people when they stumble across them today. Even if you've found other fossils before, and even though we have zoos now.
And the oldest fossils are ALWAYS the rarest and coolest of all, because they were there first.
(But, also, please don't stop writing anytime soon.)
I’m super curious what specifically these women have communicated to LW and what routines have led to the disappearances/agitation. Not that it’s my business, but it’s pretty rare to have that consistent level of insight into what exactly is tanking every relationship! Especially in that starting-out phase.
Yes, I almost replied and asked this as a follow-up question!
See above in my response to HH!
So, so good, Heather.
To the letter writer, as Dan Savage says, all romantic relationships fail until one doesn't (or something like that).
Dear BRO,
Quality men, like quality women, often find that being all you are dramatically shrinks your dating pool. Be patient. Ultimately it pays off.
I question whether negative or stereotypical portrayals of men or women are of import to people with loving hearts. You’re not “that guy” and the right woman for you will see through any societal debris. That Polly (HH) has called out “that guy” on occasion when specifically called for is not an attack on you or other great men that I can see.