This is something that I wanted to address on Feministing Community, since I know I need input on this from a feminist perspective.
Our modern, patriarchal society appears to send mixed signals about whether "pickiness" in women is a good thing. On the one hand, sexist studies continually try to prove that women are somehow choosier than men: perhaps confirming the ideal of men as the pursuers, chasing after women, and women as the pursued, carefully considering whether the men chasing them are worth their time. Men are allowed to be indiscriminating in their sexual conquests, whereas women who have too many sexual partners or show a lack of choosiness with them are shamed as "sluts" and "whores."
On the other hand, we see in countless sitcoms and romantic movies how unassuming "nobodies" of guys woo smart, accomplished women who initially didn't give these "losers" a second glance, and encourage these women to throw their carefully-constructed goals to the wind and follow their romantic whims. Women who are intelligent or conventionally attractive are expected to lower their standards for men who are less so, or are considered "snobs," whereas attractive men are allowed to outright dismiss unattractive women.
I've grappled with this lately because I'm the sort of girl who one would consider "picky." Though I've never had a boyfriend (I'm nineteen), I've learned through past crushes what sort of guy works for me and what is just not worth compromising on, no matter what, and my list has turned out longer than most women's and probably includes a lot of things other people would not consider. For one, as a classical composition major who plans to pursue composition or musicology to the Ph.D. level, I'd have trouble dating a guy who didn't know at least a little bit about classical music or had no interest in classical concerts. Writing and studying that music is my life, and I'd need to be able to discuss it with him. I also couldn't date a man who wasn't very intellectual, and didn't read (or wouldn't by choice), because I like having partners with whom I can discuss deep thoughts. Also, I've learned from dealing with past crushes who are more conservative that I need to date someone with fairly similar politics, or at least some basic core values. In particular, not someone who is anti-choice or anti-gay rights.
I've been told by many people that I'm somehow missing out by not being willing to compromise on, say, the politics front, usually by people who are not that passionate about politics themselves and so I assume they mistake my need for a political ally as close-mindedness toward different views (as I've explained to them, I'm more than willing to befriend people with different views and have many right-wing friends, but romance is a different matter). Yet, I can't help but feel that there are perhaps-unintended sexist overtones to this advice. Somehow I feel that if I were a man, choosing to date only left-wing women (or men) would not get me the same tut-tutting that dating based on politics gets me as a woman. Men are afforded the right to be choosy without derision, as well as the right to be not-so-choosy without derision. The message of society's conflicting views on women's pickiness appears to be that we're not allowed to be the one making the choices. Whether we're being too discriminating, or not discriminating enough, it's wrong, because it should be the men doing the pursuing - not us.
I've seen the cost of adhering to the stereotype of letting the men do the choosing with my older stepsister. She's a librarian with a Master's degree, who has a large library of books and prides herself on being intellectual and cultured. Her boyfriend is a college dropout who doesn't read or have much interest in anything except for playing his Xbox and partying with "his boys." My parents are very concerned about the fact that she's brought up the subject of weddings and children a lot lately, troubled by the idea that she might marry this guy. I can't help but wonder if she simply is bucking the idea that as a highly-educated woman, she needs to marry a man at or above her financial and educational level, or if she really is only doing this because she feels she has to "settle" for whatever men like her, and doesn't consider what she might gain from rejecting this guy for a partner with whom she can discuss matters more pressing than what brand of beer to buy for their next kegger. Based on how she describes him, and the fact that she has expressed before her desire to somehow "change" him and mold him into more of the man she wants, I do believe it's the latter. I've discussed with my parents whether their objection is purely based on education, and they've said it's part of it but the bigger issue is that the two don't have much in common and it seems as though my stepsister doesn't realize that she has the right to ask for more out of a relationship than what she has. Though she identifies as a feminist, I don't know if she's thought about whether her lack of consideration over what she wants out of a relationship is kowtowing to anti-feminist pressures to "settle" for whatever man wants you. And, at the same time, I feel as a feminist perhaps I should just respect her decision and whatever comes out of it, even if I feel personally it isn't a particularly feminist one.
And so, I've seen more often the costs of letting whomever likes you be the only determining factor of whom you date, and it seems like there really isn't much to lose if you demand your right to pick men by whatever criteria you see fit. Still, I occasionally wonder if on some fronts I am indeed missing out by being "too" picky. My current crush is a few years my junior, and while he's plenty smart, shares a lot of my interests, and identifies as a feminist (rare particularly for guys our age), I can't help but worry when he doesn't seem quite as captivated as I'd hoped by some of the things I like to talk about that he isn't right for me. I worry that by my indignation that as a feminist I have the right to be as picky as I please, that I'm allowing myself to reject guys for even the smallest trifles, to kick them to the curb on little things before I even get a chance to really know them.
This is my first post here and I'm sorry if it rambles, but what I'm getting at is: Is "being picky" a feminist issue? Can my stepsister's decision to "stand by her man" rather than seek out a more fulfilling relationship be a feminist one? And where do I personally draw my own line between being realistic and lowering my standards?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: On Being "Picky".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15746
Your stepsister sounds like she's going by what I call the, "I love you, you're perfect, now change" method of finding someone. It doesn't really matter WHO they are, as long as they're somebody by your side, and if you can force them into whatever box you imagine your perfect mate should be in, then all's well. In all honesty, I haven't seen any couple that fits this description where both people were truly happy. Usually the mold-er is blissfully unaware that the mold-ee is slowly growing resentful and angry. I've been the mold-ee more than once, and it's left me saying, "No, you DON'T really love me, you love the idea of me that you have."
Your "picky" (I'll use your label) method swings far to the opposite side, where you demand that someone already fit all the checkmarks before you date them. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's good to have a clear idea of what you want while at the same time being respectful that you shouldn't force somebody into that role. I've been rather picky myself, and it's pretty satisfying dating someone who does have the qualities I desire.
One thing that did come to mind though while reading your post is that sometimes it's healthy and fun to date someone who isn't interested in everything you're in when you first meet - maybe instead of looking for someone who's already into classical music, you should keep an eye out for someone who's open to learning all about a new type of music he hasn't listened to before. One really enjoyable part of relationships is teaching and learning from each other and opening up new worlds that you didn't participate in before.
I think part of it is being willing TO date, rather than casting people off the first time you notice that, as you say, they're not as captivated by things that you are. Dating isn't a marriage proposal, and if you date someone for 6 months and really get to know them, and discover what sort of things you have to share with each other, you may find that your first impressions weren't on the mark. Or maybe they were, at which time you can decide they're not for you and it's time to move on.
From my experience, you will not be able to find out who you are compatible with by having crushes. Don't get me wrong, I love crushes. I've had many, but they were all just wishful thinking on my part, even when they did end in dating or a relationship.
I was also EXTREMELY picky and went through that stage of, "Am I being too picky?" too.
Here is my advice. Know yourself. Know what you love and find interesting about yourself and BE PICKY! You need to have patience to find that other person who knows and loves and finds the same things interesting about you that you do.
Having similar interests is great. But I would caution not to write someone off because they don't have the SAME interests. Instead of limiting dating to those who love and appreciate classical music, maybe be open to someone who is also involved in graduate school who can respect and admire the time and energy that it will take to fully master your education.
But really, know yourself. If you do, when a person comes along that you can respect and who respects you in the way you deserve, you'll be able to recognize him/her right away. It worked for me.
Yeah, perhaps I should clarify that said crushes I learned from were guys whom I was friends with at the time (or still am friends with), so it was not just like guys I admired from afar. With some of the right-wing ones, I found politics to be a major source of friction at the time, and I could only stomach the thought of actually dating these guys if we either a) never talked about politics or b) I was able to push them more toward my way of thinking. The more time goes on and I get more passionate about and active in politics, the more I realize that a) isn't going to likely happen, and as I've seen with stepsister, banking on b) seems like compromising too much when there are plenty of guys out there who you wouldn't need to change on that front.
When I was 22, I wrote up the following list:
I want
... a relationship, with a man
... who wants a relationship.
... who is within 5-7 years of my age.
... who has never been married.
... who can be my friend rather than my teacher.
... who is intelligent and educated.
... who is attractive to me.
... who is more extroverted than I am, but doesn't have to be the center of every party.
... who is willing to share my interest in theatre.
... and has other common interests or hobbies we could share.
... who is loyal, kind, and a generally nice person.
... who isn't afraid of being a dork, and who isn't afraid of being serious.
... who doesn't have serious problems (drugs, excessive drinking, constantly explosive relationships).
... who is assertive, brave, and go-getting, without having to be macho or a bully.
In later times, I added two more items to the list:
... who doesn't play video games (AT ALL) -- this was due to a bad experience with my first boyfriend, an addictive gamer, in which I rediscovered that the sound and images from video games make me feel angry and sick - I can't live with them.
... who shares my basic political viewpoints (also because of the ex)
I, too, was often told that my criteria were too high, and that I had to compromise if I wanted to find anyone. In some ways those who warned me of that were right. If I had been interested in casual dating, it would not have worked out well for me. But fortunately, I wanted a serious, long term relationship, and didn't mind being single during the long spans between finding candidates.
My first boyfriend WAS a compromise on many of those points, and it was a disaster. We had fun at first, but the relationship ended up being semi-emotionally-abusive. After that, I was even more determined to stick to "being picky" -- even if it meant being alone.
When I was 27, I met my current partner, and a year into our relationship with him I found that forgotten list I'd written up at age 22. He fit every single point (though sometimes in surprising ways -- ie, he is six years younger rather than older than me). Now two years have passed, and we're very happy. I have no regrets about being "picky" -- knowing what I wanted helped me recognize him for the gem that he was and allowed me to take a big risk on the relationship.
Your list reminds me of how my criteria has changed as I've met different people. I used to be pretty dead set on not dating anyone who'd been married already. I wasn't even going to give the guy I'm currently seeing the time of day because he was divorced AND 10 years older than me, which fell outside my "accepted ages" range that I had in my head. But he seemed really great, and as I've been getting to know him, I've been really, really relieved I didn't turn him down on that basis alone.
So I guess to add to my first comment - it's good to know what you want, but don't cling to it so hard you let something worthwhile pass you by because it doesn't fit exactly.
I had a specific reason for those two entries -- my father was 20 years older than my mother, and had grown children. There was a lot of pain in our family from the fact that his older children never accepted us. I witnessed first-hand the downsides of those situations, and came to the conclusion that I didn't want those particular complications in my life. I wondered if I should have noted the fact that if I were composing that list at a different point in my life (like in my 30s), those entries might not have been there. But at 22, they seemed like perfectly good criteria, and given my personal history, I'm still rather grateful that my partner doesn't have an ex in the wings.
Oh, I hope you didn't think I was arguing against you having those criteria, your post just sort of set me off thinking about mine.
You're allowed to be picky. Because you're allowed to go out with anyone you like, and are also allowed not to waste your time on anyone you don't like. It's called freedom. And it's the only way you'll find out what makes you happy. If this doesn't, go ahead and do something else. Have fun regardless.
I'm saying this because as a young woman I felt much too easily guilty for not liking any man who didn't want me. That was just stupid. I bought into the cultural stereotype that somehow men had the right to have me. Not. Absolutely not.
Oops - I meant "for not liking any man who wanted me".
"I bought into the cultural stereotype that somehow men had the right to have me."
Ooh, have you read about those TFL (true forced loneliness) people. It is a group of men that complain that women are too picky and as a result of that they are being"forced" into loneliness. Seriously, google them and watch their videos. Its frightening that men like this exist. One of them even argued that the women who were murdered in the LA Fitness shooting deserved to die because it is all a part of the dating game.
Be picky, avoid losers.
I've had some disastrous relationships, some 'meh' ones, and am currently married to someone who knocks my socks off, and my only advice is to figure out the essentials, and not sweat the rest.
On the classical music front - since people have particularly been commmenting on this - I'm not necessarily talking about needing to date another music major or someone who can list all of Wagner's operas or explain Schoenberg's twelve-tone theory. If anything, since I go to a music conservatory and spend most of my time around other classical musicians, I've found having non-musician friends and hanging out at my university's main campus (away from the conservatory) to be a very refreshing break from all the drama of music school. The "classical music" requirement is more just about knowing a little bit and being willing to learn more. He doesn't need to have Beethoven at the top of his playlist, but if he runs screaming in the other direction from a symphony or opera concert, he's not for me.
So, I've always been a player. I date I hook up, and then BAM, meet some guy who totally knocks my socks off and go all googly eyed over him for at least 6-12 months. I used to have a list. But it got too long. I distilled it. Now my list is: sexual compatibility, have fun, get along, and be able to talk to each other. Broad and basic. A lot of people will surprise you, if you let them. My boyfriend now is not as educated as I am, but he's quick, and clever, and has a breadth of practical knowledge I am in awe of, and he doesn't get all self-conscious if I know something he doesn't. On my old list, he would have been written off, and that would be a shame.
As for pickiness as a gender issue, I think it's as much a personality issue as anything. My older brother was all kinds of picky until he met his wife. His ideal woman was: non-white, at least as smart as him, athletic, fun, a match for him in the kitchen, and anything but a doctor. Thank goodness for him that he knew when to bend on these, because his wife only gets a 66% by that scale. But he is extremely fastidious, and i think this might be where gender comes in. I think women are socialized to be a bit more organized and meticulous than men; men are the ideas guys, women do the detail work. So are women pickier? Maybe. but there are a lot of personality factors that go into "picky", not all of which are immediately obvious.
When it comes down to sex, I think women have good reason to be picky. This then raises the question whether intercourse is the primary instinctual factor that drives the decision making process about who we choose to select as a mate. If a woman wants to have strong children who survive in a harsh world and hopefully make it to the next generation to procreate themselves, then one would want a strong, virile man to produce the desired effect.
But when you layer the societal impact on top of it, then things become much more blurred. When one inserts low self-esteem or a poor self-image into a society that already sends women (and men) mixed messages regarding what they ought to value and pursue regarding a relationship, then we have a toxic brew. It is as if our societal programming runs directly contradictory to our biological programming and then we all end up confused and conflicted. It very nearly is a kind of schizophrenia.
But in your case, I think you're wise to have these reservations, though a certain amount of relationships are compromise. Any successful relationship I have ever had has included some manner of differing interests, but not all differences need create friction. Sometimes you can learn from his differences, and he can learn from yours. You are aware of what you don't want and that is something I have found, sad to say, that many of us are not aware of at all.
Yuck, evo psych. Tell me, if nature wants me to covet a "strong, virile man", and so does nurture (see: societal standards of masculinity), then why do I want a respectful, intelligent, funny, and loving man instead? Does this mean I'm broken or what?
I'm technically agreeing with you, but this is a tangent:
Is anyone else a little disturbed by the EVO PSYCH EWWWW attitude in feminism? I agree that evolutionary psychology is used and abused and can be twisted around quite a bit, but it seems anti-scientific to ignore it completely. If nothing else, one has to wonder why humans are by nature so easy to socialize.
Practice Evo Psych responsibly, people.
(Kevin, this includes you. Humans evolved to be social creatures and that also has an effect on how our brains work.)
I have no problem with science. I love science. It tells us many wonderful things that we otherwise would not know. But not every field of science is necessarily a valid one. Phrenology and astrology were both considered credible fields in their day. Science wasn't infallible then, and it isn't now; people are not inherently wiser or immune to bad science just because we're a few centuries further along in the timeline. Evo psych doesn't adhere to the scientific method, and it often ignores not only the existence of other cultures, but the history of western culture. How are you supposed to rule out cultural factors when you do that?!
There might be some real science under all that bullshit, but it's pretty hard to see where I'm standing. Most of it just seems to be excuses for people to act like sexist, racist asshats. If the evolutionary psychologists want to go out and prove me wrong, that'd be wonderful, but I'm not holding my breath here.
Evo psych makes a hell of a lot more sense than phrenology.
We touched on it in one of my classes, and we talked about very very basic evo psych. We discussed the social structure that humans and our ancestors lived in -- very tight-knit smallish groups -- and how that might have something to do with how modern humans often feel lonely.
If you're going to go deciding that all evo psych is about how women evolved to want big strong men and such, you're being very shortsighted. Humans often do things that go against our best interest, and the reason why is usually a mix of culture and biology.
Of course there is nothing wrong in having some basic criteria for who you want to date. I too would find it difficult being with someone who had very different political views. But I think its important that we are realistic and don't end up having criteria that nobody could match.
By that I mean that we don't have long shopping lists that mean we never consider someone who may not be our absolute ideal. And sometimes I think people do this as a way of avoiding dating or intimacy (although I don't think you are doing this).
By the way I think men can be very picky as well. I think of those men who are unwilling to date women unless they are conventionally beautiful even though they are pretty ordinary looking themselves.
As a lesbian I wouldn't want to date anyone who is right wing, who has young children, who isn't in too monagamy and who doesn't want to be out to their family and friends.
Sorry forgot to mention that I think it is really hard to judge from the outside whether your sister is making the right decision in being with her boyfriend and wanting to marry him. Certainly the wanting to change him bit doesn't bode well.
But sometimes relationships that can look mismatched from the outside can work very well and make both parties happy.
First: hooray for serious classical musicians! I'm a grad student in music theory, and I absolutely understand your insistence on dating someone sympathetically minded. The thought of dating someone who couldn't share in the most important aspect of my life... incomprehensible. This hardly even strikes me as being "picky"; "picky" to me implies a degree of conscious choice. (As if I were to tell a straight person they were just being "picky" and they really ought to be attracted to men and women.)
More importantly, though: I just wanted to say thanks for bringing the topic up. Not something I'd thought about in this way before, & I'll enjoy mulling it over for the next couple days.
" She's a librarian with a Master's degree, who has a large library of books and prides herself on being intellectual and cultured. Her boyfriend is a college dropout who doesn't read or have much interest in anything except for playing his Xbox and partying with "his boys." [...] I can't help but wonder if she simply is bucking the idea that as a highly-educated woman, she needs to marry a man at or above her financial and educational level, "
I'm sorry, *why* does she NEED to marry someone at or above her financial and educational level???
Especially why on the educational level?
This post struck me as very classist and elitist..
I was a college dropout six years ago with no intention of ever returning to school. Now I'm in a PhD program. I'm the exact same person with the exact same partner. Thank goodness my partner didn't hold me to the elitist standard you seem to be holding..
I can't help but wonder if she simply is bucking the idea that as a highly-educated woman, she needs to marry a man at or above her financial and educational level, "
I believe the OP was referring to that cultural implication that one must marry someone of their same "station" when it comes to education, economic status, etc.
I don't think she was defending the idea.
you're right, i should have read it more thoroughly.
But I think my point still stands. the OP goes on to lament about his lack of education and "culture," stating maybe "she really is only doing this because she feels she has to "settle" for whatever men like her, and doesn't consider what she might gain from rejecting this guy for a partner with whom she can discuss matters more pressing than what brand of beer to buy for their next kegger."
I just think this is really over simplistic and offensive.. because there wasn't much substance to her dislike of this man besides the fact that he is a college drop-out who doesn't enjoy reading. These were the only tangible traits she described as being problematic. And I just think that it seems very elitist to assume that just because this man doesn't hold a degree that he must be some sort of idiot that can't possibly relate to a person who enjoys books and holds a master's degree. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure there is much more to the situation than that. But people bond and connect over all sorts of things, and calling it "settling" is really problematic.
I know when I dropped out of school I didn't eve read a book for five years. I was a bartender. I worked a lot. I went out. I met my partner and we connected on many levels. Now that I'm back in school, a voracious reader, we can enjoy talking about academia (my partner holds an M.A. in art history). But before that, and if I had decided to never go back to school, I still think our relationship would have lasted.
It still seems to me that the OP is being judgmental and that her judgement is couched in elitism and classism..
I don't know if you read my post thorougly. You would have a point, indeed, if the only problem was their education gap, but as I explained, the larger problem is a) they don't have much in common AT ALL besides drinking and partying, and b) she frequently talks about trying to change him and mold him into her more "ideal" man, rather than accepting him for who he is (or seeking out a different man who fits her requirements).
On another issue, while I do think that a concern over education gaps may indeed be classist, I don't think a concern over lack of intellectual curiosity is necessarily classist. Again, a lot of this has to do with the sort of person my stepsister is, someone who enjoys discussing literature and culture with everyone EXCEPT her boyfriend and his friends. If she weren't that much of an intellectual herself, I don't think my parents would care quite as much.
And, also, I wanted to apologize for coming off as classist or elitist. That wasn't my intention, and I tried my best in this post to make sure readers knew that her desire to change him was more my concern than the fact that she had a degree and he didn't. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
just want to say that being picky isn't a bad thing. You've got to remember that these are potentially the men you will be going to bed with. We get to be picky for that reason alone
I don't really understand your comment. My criteria is based on potential boyfriends, not simply on potential sex partners. Obviously, if sex were my only consideration, whether a guy shares my interest in classical music, likes to read, and shares my politics wouldn't really be issues (other than, anyone who is anti-choice and/or anti-contraception would not be sharing a bed with me any time soon).
I disagree with the point that the reason you need to be picky is because of sex. If you're only interested in "getting some," then you're mainly looking for someone who is willing to use birth control, who doesn't have any sexually-transmittable infections or diseases (or, if s/he does, will take the necessary precautions, e.g. condom, to keep from transferring them), and who fits your ideal physical profile enough for you to stomach the thought of seeing them naked. So while having NO standards is a bad idea if sex is all you're looking for, you don't need to have particularly HIGH standards either. If you're looking for a full-fledged romantic relationship, though, then a lot more should be on the table, and the sexual considerations may or may not be important depending on whether you're planning to have sex or not (I am, but I know not everyone does).
If you lower your standards too much, there's a point where you would have been happier if you'd stayed single. I would be miserable dating an unfeminist man, or one I wasn't attracted to, or one I couldn't get along with, or one I had *nothing* in common with, and it's not unreasonable for me to keep that in mind. On the other hand, nobody's perfect, and IMO it's good for couples to have a few interests that they don't share (everyone needs some time apart). You can be as picky as you want, and only you can guess whether you'd be happier with him in your life or not.
Why do you even care about sh!t like this? You don't have to compromise your principles to date some loser you have nothing in common with. Some may call you picky, but if you're not, you're just settling -- you're just giving into the idea that, as a woman, you should be slavishly grateful for any man you can get. Screw that. Being stuck with some mouthbreather just for the sake of "having a man" isn't worth it.
I'm not pitching ALL of my standards; I'm not even considering that option. I'm wondering if one or two of them are a bit too extreme, and perhaps I'm missing out on some good guys who might not be the same as me but are still interesting, intelligent and worth dating.
At the same time, this article is mainly about whether the right to be picky (or not be) is a feminist issue, and how much our ideas about dating standards are influenced by society's ideas about where women's places in the dating rituals are.
Oh, this is definitely a feminist issue. Wasn't dear Fay Weldon on about this?
'Women are so picky, OMG they'll end up *gasp* spinsters'!
As if never finding a life partner is a fate worse than death.
Someone refusing to date people from a certain *social class* would be snobbery. Choosing to date people of a certain level of intelligence or education isn't. Not the same thing. (Qualification - by education, I don't necessarily mean where they went to school or university and how far, as that *can* be linked to social class, but more general knowledge of and interest in the world. There are people who have privileged backgrounds who don't bother to read anything more demanding than Heat, and people from poor backgrounds who had to leave school at 16 and get a low level job but take evening classes, read, and generally learn things in their own time).
Not everyone does consider these things to be important in a romantic partner, of course. If OP's stepsister really loves this guy, it might be that she's with him because he is a kind person, good-looking, etc. and that she just doesn't find intellectual stimulation important in a partner. It might be that she gets enough of that from her work, and friends. But if she really *wants* a partner on her intellectual level, and just doesn't really believe she deserves better, that is a problem. OP's gut instinct seems to be that it is the second one.
We should do what makes us happy, whatever that is, whether that's a guy who we can have a good conversation about dialectics with or who looks like Brad Pitt. Or um, both. Some people would rather have *someone OK* than be alone, some would rather be alone than settle for just someone OK.
Many women settle for someone, in the belief that they are lucky to get any man with a car/ job/ his own teeth. My own mother has said she only married my father because she didn't think any other man would want her. This is sad. It is of course linked to women's lack of self-esteem, and patriarchy is invested in that. It is very much in patriarchy's interest to ensure that a. women are in relationships with men (ignoring maybe 1% of het relationships that are actually equal) and b. that said women don't believe they can demand decent treatment from said men, because they feel they are lucky to have them at all.
I can't be with someone who cannot appreciate art (he doesn't have to be good at it but must appreciate it) 2 doesn't mind going to museum (History buff here) 3. respect my family and my culture and most importantly understand personal thing that happened in that I had no control of. I think it o.k for men and women be to be picky, if you plan to be in a committed relationship with someone it might i be someone that understand you and is willing to help you and make you happy. (and a vise-a-versa) that my personal philosophy. I see to many girls are with a guy for the wrong reasons instead of the right ones.