Many women have experienced it: unwanted attention that makes them uncomfortable, yet instead of responding directly, they soften their reaction, minimise their discomfort, or prioritise the other person’s feelings. This isn’t because women are naturally more accommodating or conflict-averse. It is the result of long-standing social conditioning that teaches women to manage men’s emotions — even when it costs them their own sense of safety or self-respect.
From a young age, girls are taught that being “nice” is a virtue, especially toward boys. They are encouraged to avoid embarrassment, to smooth over awkwardness, and to consider how their actions might affect someone else’s confidence. Over time, this becomes internalised as a responsibility: if a man feels hurt, awkward, or rejected, a woman is expected to absorb that discomfort rather than allow him to feel it. Boys, on the other hand, are far less often taught how to handle rejection with grace or accountability.
There is also a very real and rational fear behind this behaviour. Many women know — through personal experience or shared stories — that rejecting unwanted attention can provoke anger, hostility, or escalation. What begins as discomfort can quickly turn into verbal abuse, harassment, or worse. In this context, politeness is not passivity; it is a survival strategy. Choosing not to upset a man can feel safer than asserting a boundary and risking retaliation.
Social consequences reinforce this pattern. Women who are clear or firm are often labelled as rude, cold, or aggressive, while men who persist are often excused as confident or persistent. This double standard teaches women that setting boundaries will be judged more harshly than tolerating discomfort. As a result, many women learn to dilute their language, apologise unnecessarily, or second-guess themselves rather than risk social backlash.
Over time, this conditioning erodes women’s trust in their own instincts. Discomfort is reframed as overreaction. Intrusion is dismissed as friendliness. The wish to avoid “making a scene” overrides the right to feel safe and respected. Instead of seeing boundaries as reasonable, women are taught to view them as confrontational or unkind.
Compounding this is the cultural narrative that male attention is inherently flattering. Women are often told they should feel grateful for interest, regardless of whether it is wanted. Rejecting that attention is then framed as arrogance or ingratitude, rather than self-protection. This framing shifts responsibility away from the person crossing the boundary and onto the person experiencing the discomfort.
The result is a quiet but significant cost. Women carry the emotional labour of managing situations they did not invite. They suppress their needs, minimise their feelings, and prioritise harmony over honesty. Over time, this can lead to self-silencing, anxiety, and a diminished sense of agency.
It is important to be clear: women are not responsible for managing men’s reactions to rejection. A man’s disappointment, embarrassment, or bruised ego does not outweigh a woman’s right to comfort, safety, and autonomy. Politeness is not consent. Silence is not agreement. And prioritising one’s own boundaries is not cruelty.
Recognising this dynamic is the first step toward changing it — not by blaming women for how they cope, but by challenging the social expectations that make self-betrayal feel necessary in the first place.
Infemism 
Leave a comment