When we say that women only like winners which primarily comes with genes and secondly with social status, soypillers always tend to retort with behavior and personality. It's a way to shift the blame on men by burrying the bio-social aspects of women's mate selection under a mound of affective logic, but it arguably makes it no less embarassing for them ; who could say with a straight face that women don't judge men harshly on peripheral traits like, let's say, shyness or simply unwordliness, when there's a million of stupefying medias and social codes as mediators in between them - medias and codes that have absolutely nothing to do with being a GOOD FRIGGIN HUMAN BEAN ? 
If we get into affects, we have to acknowledge that sympathy and antipathy - non absolute abstractions - act as a value axis, and it's very obvious to see that women find themselves on one of the extreme sides of that axis ; they are not in the middle, therefore men - unless they're total dregs - can't be blamed for not meeting their standards of behavior or personality ; it's totally preposterous to claim such a thing when women's culture is Sex and the City, narcissistic pop feminism or Sabrina Carpenter.
If we get into affects, we have to acknowledge that sympathy and antipathy - non absolute abstractions - act as a value axis, and it's very obvious to see that women find themselves on one of the extreme sides of that axis ; they are not in the middle, therefore men - unless they're total dregs - can't be blamed for not meeting their standards of behavior or personality ; it's totally preposterous to claim such a thing when women's culture is Sex and the City, narcissistic pop feminism or Sabrina Carpenter.
