Arrogance is often described as a sense of inflated self-importance and a dismissive view of others. It can involve pride, narcissism, and a tendency to look down on people who don’t meet certain criteria. In psychology, arrogance is also closely linked to how we project our own insecurities or convictions onto the world. Sometimes we accuse others of arrogance because their preferences or opinions clash with our own, or because we interpret their words as demeaning. These clashes become particularly evident when it comes to relationships, where certain preferences—especially men’s preferences—are often labeled arrogant or even offensive. Yet, if those very same preferences come from women, they might be seen as normal or acceptable.

From a psychological standpoint, individuals do view life through the lens of their own beliefs. When someone insists there is only one valid way to be “a real man” or a “normal woman,” it can reveal internal biases rather than objective truths. This article examines scenarios in which men articulate specific preferences for a partner and often face accusations of arrogance, hostility, or lack of empathy. By looking at these scenarios in more detail, we can understand how projection, double standards, and unrealistic expectations intertwine.

Why Arrogance Is About More Than Just Having Standards

Some people conflate having personal standards with being arrogant. In reality, arrogance tends to revolve around disregarding others as inherently less worthy. It appears as an attitude that says, “Anyone who doesn’t meet my ideal is beneath me.” Psychologically, it’s important to differentiate between a personal boundary—preferring certain traits, lifestyles, or circumstances—and the belief that those who do not align with those preferences are inherently flawed or inferior. Preferences can be communicated respectfully, while arrogance usually includes an element of contempt.

It helps to remember that those who appear arrogant may be responding to prior experiences or cultural messages. Sometimes men adopt what seem like harsh views after repeated disappointments; the same can be true for women, who might label men as “not real men” because of earlier negative encounters. Projection often comes into play when a person assumes that someone else’s personal taste is motivated by hatred or malice. Each side can become defensive and volley accusations back and forth, overlooking that each individual has a right to form or express a preference—provided it is done without belittling others.

Preferences about Physical Appearance

A common source of tension is how people talk about body types. Some men state openly that they feel attracted to slender partners, and their remarks can spark enormous backlash. Others might prefer a more curvaceous physique, and if they vocalize it, they may not face the same criticism. In either case, personal attraction varies widely, and there is no universal standard. Conflict arises when someone interprets a statement like “I prefer a certain build” as an attack on everyone else. The response sometimes escalates into remarks such as “You hate women,” or “You are not a real man,” as if having a preference for one body type automatically invalidates all others.

Psychologically, this points to deeper sensitivities regarding body image. When people are used to defending their appearance against criticism, they may automatically interpret a person’s innocent preference as an insult. Meanwhile, the individual expressing that preference can come across as arrogant if they frame their attraction as superior rather than subjective. Finding a balanced perspective requires recognizing that no one is obligated to find all body types equally appealing, but also that a preference does not justify speaking negatively about everyone outside that preference.

Preferences about Past Relationships and Children

When a man says he wants to avoid dating someone with an ex-husband or children, it often triggers accusations of coldness or insensitivity. Though many men have no reservations about being with a partner who has a previous marriage or children, others may worry about lingering emotional connections, frequent contact with an ex, or the additional responsibilities of caring for a child who is not theirs. These preferences do not automatically signify disdain for single parents. In psychology, such concerns can be viewed as risk avoidance or a desire to minimize conflict—factors that some individuals weigh heavily when deciding whether a relationship will suit them long term.

Critics sometimes argue, “A real man would never reject someone just because she has a child.” Yet, relationship dynamics involving an ex-spouse can become complicated, especially if the ex maintains close involvement in everyday life. While many men handle such complexities gracefully, others feel it would overwhelm them. The key difference between a legitimate personal choice and genuine arrogance lies in whether the man denigrates single mothers as lesser or simply states, “I don’t think this arrangement is right for me.”

Interestingly, social surveys suggest a substantial portion of women also prefer to avoid men who have children from a previous relationship. They might not want to deal with the emotional or financial commitments that come with that situation. However, the same women might accuse a man of being uncaring or arrogant if he articulates the same preference. This double standard reflects a cultural pattern where men’s boundaries sometimes get dismissed as insensitivity, whereas women’s boundaries are viewed as normal self-care.

Preferences about Financial Independence

Many men express a desire for a partner who has her own income or at least the skills and willingness to support herself if needed. They see this as an indicator of maturity, ambition, or personal responsibility. Culturally, some women believe a man should be the primary or sole provider, so when a man states that he wants his partner to be financially independent, it can be labeled as arrogant or accusatory. The reaction is often along the lines of, “How dare you expect women to earn money?” or “You hate women if you don’t want to support them.”

From a psychological viewpoint, wanting a partner who can share responsibilities does not automatically equate to belittling those who prefer traditional roles. The preference might reflect a more modern concept of relationships, where both parties contribute to the household budget. Many men who advocate for independence actually feel ready to invest substantial resources in a family, but they might also feel more at ease knowing that if a crisis arises, their partner can step in. Calling them arrogant often overlooks the fact that people have a spectrum of expectations, and independence can be a mutual safeguard rather than an insult.

On the flip side, if a man makes broad claims that any woman who does not have a job or higher education is worthless, that moves from a personal boundary into genuine contempt. The difference lies in whether he explains, “I prefer a partner who’s academically oriented or career-focused” or he derides all women who do not fit that image as incompetent. It’s this latter dismissive tone that triggers real accusations of arrogance.

Why Accusations of Arrogance Persist

Many heated arguments stem from the way personal preferences are communicated. If someone phrases their desires with respect, focusing on what they want instead of demeaning what they don’t want, the conversation is less likely to spark outrage. Difficulties arise when a man or woman states a preference in a way that sounds like, “Everyone who doesn’t fit my mold is defective.” That generalization fosters resentment and a perception of arrogance.

Projection also operates strongly in such disagreements. If a woman has previously felt judged for her weight or personal choices, she may interpret even gentle comments about someone else’s weight preference as direct criticism. Similarly, a man who has been ridiculed for not fitting a conventional standard of masculinity might be quick to lash out if a woman comments on wanting a certain body type. These defensive reactions often form a cycle of mutual blame, with each side accusing the other of hatred or narcissism.

Another element behind these accusations is societal expectation. Some cultural norms still assert that men should accept any and all obstacles without complaint, from financial strain to complex family situations. When men openly state they have limitations or specific desires, it can be perceived as defiance of these norms. Women’s preferences, in contrast, may be normalized because they align with ideas like “women should be selective to protect themselves.” Hence, the double standard emerges where men face condemnation for preferences that many women hold in reverse. Social media platforms can amplify these conflicts and contribute to the formation of echo chambers where biases are reinforced.

The Psychological Perspective on Double Standards

Psychologically, double standards reveal conflicting messages about what is acceptable behavior for men and women. If we embrace the idea that both genders should have the freedom to define what works for them—without demonizing each other—many of these conflicts could dissipate. Problems intensify when people assume one side’s standards are justified while the other side’s are arrogant. Also, we need to consider how societal biases can be internalized and affect individuals' self-perception and their views of others - in psychology, these phenomenons called "internalized misogyny" and "internalized misandry".

True arrogance would involve looking at someone’s background or circumstances and declaring them inferior. Simply stating, “I don’t want to navigate that situation in my relationship” does not necessarily qualify as arrogance. Rather, it can reflect personal preferences, life goals, or comfort levels. Yet, on the other side, those who voice such preferences can cross into arrogance if they communicate them with spite, disgust, or a tone suggesting that their choices are not only personal but the only valid choices.

How to Avoid Unproductive Conflict

From a psychological standpoint, healthy communication hinges on clarity, empathy, and the recognition that personal boundaries do not have to degrade others. If a man believes that raising another person’s child is too emotionally challenging, he can present this respectfully, while also acknowledging that others feel differently and that single-parent families can be very fulfilling.

Similarly, if he wants a partner who is financially independent, he can express that preference without labeling everyone else as lazy or foolish. This approach fosters a calmer exchange of ideas and reduces the risk of being labeled arrogant. Encouraging open dialogue, where each person can say, “This is what I’m looking for” without shaming those who do not fit that description, builds understanding rather than resentment.

When someone accuses another of arrogance, it helps to step back and see if there is any contempt in the tone. Maybe the preference was stated too harshly, or maybe the listener felt attacked because of past experiences. Checking these emotional triggers can prevent the spiral of defensive reactions. A more psychologically informed approach involves asking questions, clarifying meaning, and avoiding blanket statements.

Conclusion: Personal Boundaries Are Not Always Arrogance

People often have genuine reasons for their preferences in relationships. They might hope to avoid unresolved drama or prefer certain lifestyles and values that make them feel secure. Though these preferences can spark controversy, labeling them as arrogance might overlook a more complex reality. Anyone—man or woman—has the right to articulate what they find compatible, as long as they refrain from belittling or devaluing others in the process.

Whether it’s about physical appearance, marital history, children, or economic roles, open communication and mutual respect typically pave the way for more productive dialogues. Preferences can exist without implying a lack of worth in those who do not meet them. Ultimately, it’s a matter of recognizing each other’s autonomy while remembering that personal choice does not have to be accompanied by contempt. In a psychologically healthy environment, both sides can express what they want, remain open to the reality that not everyone will agree, and accept that neither preference nor refusal is automatically synonymous with arrogance.

The tension often lies in the tone and the implied judgments. When individuals become better equipped to approach these topics without hostility, they are better equipped to approach these topics without hostility. This balanced outlook helps avoid the trap of seeing every difference as an affront, making space for genuinely respectful conversations about what each person desires in a partner—and the reasons they hold such views.