why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I'm just glad that my working days are over.

Cuz feminists secretly want an alpha and resent "nerds" but are too PC to admit it, lol.

The Feminist Push To Sanction Female Infidelity

Recall the Chateau Heartiste description of feminism:


If you examine feminist ideas in detail, most of them amount to justifications for the above formulation. A feminist utopia is one in which women....have limitless options in the sexual and economic markets while men’s options are curtailed to the fullest extent possible....

...What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to f**k alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle. CH predicted it: Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses....

....The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term. Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them. This is because men, unlike women, can easily sever sex from emotional connection. A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife. A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”. There’s a reason “eat, pray, love” is marketed to the fantasies of women....

Well, yes, but a woman in that position can yell "Sexual Harassment" or "Sexual Discrimination" or "Sexual Objectification" and make a stink.

A man has considerably less recourse.

So you believe that most women are able to just "take things for granted?"

Yeah, being paid more for the same-level of job sucks when the cuts come down, eh?

And how are you seriously contending that a man is "forced" to work more than he should?

It's sure possible that some will say that.Consider how many males make jokes like "what's a little lady like you know about business,etc......",that bad male behavior gets projected onto all males.Men should police other men,stand up and tell them not to make comments like that.I think some women are over defensive because of remarks like that.My ex like to jokingly say,"what do you know,you're just a woman."But he didn't mean it as a joke,he really believes women are less than men.We are all bad drivers,gold diggers,evil ,sluts.etc.... in his mind.So if women have to put up with men like this,they may be cranky.

Yeah, I kinda do. Take this quote from a female member of this very site:

[I'd pointed out that free trade had hit manufacturing harder than fields that are protected my US-specific job certification requirements.]



How many machinists, CNC programmers, quality engineers, QA techs, assembly techs, manufacturing engineers, and welders does she actually know? Nobody who's worked in those areas would say that. When I worked in industry, our company had the choice of competing with the Germans, Japanese and Dutch on quality, the Koreans and Taiwanese on service, or the Chinese and Malaysians on price. Pick your poison; it's going to hurt. We were lucky to have the best performance in our industry, hands-down. But we still had big-pocketed foreign conglomerates like Canon and Philips pouring money into developing in-house alternatives to our systems because they didn't like relying on an outside supplier for something so critical. Our company had 60 employees and was worth about $20 million. Canon and Philips could have afforded to pour that much into R&D alone every year if they'd really wanted to. If a female chief engineer has the mojo to beat competition like that on an budget that just barely covers her salary, I doubt that anyone would argue with her. Our chief engineer was a guy, and he did just that.

Unless she has something astounding to tell me, the above quote shows a level of ignorance of (still) male productive systems that's rivaled only by Todd Akin's ignorance of her reproductive system. At least Akin has an excuse: as far as I know, they're not sleeping together. She, on the other hand, is using all of those men.

On a related note, as I started writing this, there was a power-company bucket truck outside of my widow. It was 25 degrees out, which is balmy for MN. The crew was all-male, as usual. I commented on that to another guy, and he said that he's seen a woman on their crews in the area several times. He had nothing but good things to say about that. There was a girl who worked for one of the garbage companies that services this area. We always exchanged waves and smiles, just as I do with the men who work on the trucks. If women want to help out with tough jobs, not many men resent that.



I have a fixed minimum cost of living in America. We have expensive tax-funded programs relating to industry. We field navies to police shipping lanes, for example. I can't refuse to pay taxes (I'd be jailed or shot), and I don't oppose taxes to fund repairs of the things in my world that are appallingly broken. Most taxes have nothing to do with that.

We spend lots of public money training technologists. Where do they end up working? Designing an asteroid interdiction system? Making dykes that hold? Making iPads would be more like it.

A girl needs an iPad/iPhone like I need a blowjob. When I look at the news, I invariably see someone harping about the supposed urgent need to train/import more technologists. Why? So Tim Cook can take his pick and underpay them? We already have more engineering graduates every year than there are openings. Yes, people who graduate can find a job, but that's because a lot of them realize just how hard it will be and find something easier.

As I said, I have no problem with taxes that support needs, so let's look at what a need is:

I have a couple of old PalmOS handhelds that meet or exceed all of the jesusPhone's useful capabilities. My Handspring Visor Deluxe, circa 2001, could accept a cellular module, making for a very direct comparison: It weighed roughly the same and had similar dimensions. The battery life would have been poor with the cellular connection on, just like the first four iPhones. Unlike the iPhone, its battery was easily replaceable. Ditto for my Palm m500, meaning that both of them still work. The productivity apps kick iOS's butt many times over. Having a TV in my pocket is a bug, not a feature.

I've mentioned British Columbia's home-insulation program, and its superior effectiveness in cutting CO2 relative to things like hybrid electric cars, cost-no-object. It also costs a lot less. If you really wanted to be fair, you could require home efficiency improvements, just as we required auto companies to meet mileage standards. Who needs a subsidy? If you really want to save gas, consider this: Just joining the apposing walls of four roughly-cubic two story homes cuts their exposed surface area (and heating and cooling needs) by 40%. You don't need to tax me to do that. You could just do it. It would even save you money. I'm still in favor of research funding, but it's not urgently needed to solve this problem, and it may not be able to: Carbon nanotubes may be have a pulmonary toxicity worse than asbestos. We've already been through that with another super-material, beryllium.

You questioned my use of the word "force". Not only do a stand by it, but I'll add that it's force intended to service women's reproductive urges.

"A girl needs an iPad/iPhone like I need a blowjob." - literally. Not many people are exclusively auto-sexual. If pleasure were just about physical sensation, I'd be totally disinterested in women. Let's compare her to my hand:

My hand has five digits, each with several articulations and fine motor control. Even a girl who does Kagel exercises every day can't match that. Humans are sexual organisms, and human instincts tell most people that it takes two to tango. That's been widely publicized as it relates to men. If it's fair for women to inferentially scrutinize my innermost psyche, then turnabout is fair too:

Why do she want a thin laptop? Probably because it's unnatural, and that tells her reptilian brain that she's being attended to. Instant sexual satisfaction. If you argue that girls don't intensely want that, you're arguing against Darwin. Nobody's won that yet. We have a particularly troublesome reproductive cycle. They would have to want that. It may not be rational now, but sex isn't rational either, and that hasn't stopped girls from interpreting all male behavior as an expression of sex-drive.

You might still think that there's some practical advantage to a thinner laptop. That's easy to demolish: Personally, I'd personally prefer a lighter one. Often thin things are heavier. A monoplane is heavier than a bi-plane. Aluminum and steel have the same stiffness-to-weight-ratio, so how can an aluminum bicycle frame be lighter? By making the tubes fatter while thinning the walls. (You can't do that with steel because the walls were already only 0.4 mm thick.) These four factors determine where I can carry a laptop: footprint, weight, thickness and toughness. If you're cutting it so close that a few millimeters of thickness matter, then toughness matters more. Most bags flex. They'll flex by a centimeter under the weight of their contents alone. If your precious peripheral brain is squeezed into a bag, bending or breaking will be a problem sooner rather than later. (It's not my job and never has been, but I've fixed a lot of these exact failures.) The thinner it is, the worse that will be: For a given material (and cost), you can't make a thin object stiff without making it heavy. It can withstand abuse if you design it to flex, but that's trouble in a laptop or tablet because of the way that the chips are attached to the boards. The actual flake of silicon isn't soldered directly to the board (a damn' good thing in this case); it's soldered to a tougher "package" in the factory. To get the number of connections that current chips require, you need what's called a ball-grid-array (BGA) package, the entire underside of which is covered with drops of solder at each of connection. That leaves no room for flex. If you look closely at a modern board, you can see the gap. It's not more than a millimeter, probably less. It gets worse: the solder has to be lead free to meet EU regulations. Lead-free solder doesn't bond as well, leading to what's called a "balls-off" failure. That kills the system board and you can't fix it. (Maybe if you had the ultrasonic tool that they used at the factory, but you've already wrecked your data.) You don't want to bend the board.

There are only a few things that keep me from carrying an HP Omnibook 800CT, circa 1997:

1: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/wh ... -away.html

2: The new batteries are lighter.

3: The new screens are better.

None of which has anything to do with its 1-1/2" thickness. That's just a non-issue in practical use.

Yes, girls like stuff; yes, it's sexual; no, it's not my problem; no, maintaining a steady supply of engineers at below-market salaries is not a legigimate use of tax-money.

The End.

he case (Re: the second quote) is that my cost of living = what's needed to support my life and comfort + public expenses.

I maintain that:

(a) men are more ascetic on average, unless they're trying to impress women.

(b) what's needed to support my life and comfort < my fraction of public expenses.

Given (a), pressure on men to procure more stuff than needed (as a demonstration of mating fitness) is no different from pressure on women to be "beautiful".

(c) we have tax support for one and not the other. (We used to have home-making classes. They're gone. Any training that's *only* needed to make me an old-fashioned bread-winner should be gone, too. That would be *real* 21st Century gender equality.)

I personally think that my cost of living could be cut to a tenth of what it is now, while still supporting the same number of people with equal-or-better comfort, safety and longevity.

It's hard to make that case without lots of technical examples.

I think that the main barrier to that is that it would be too ascetic, and girls wouldn't like it.

I don't think that the above accusation is any more unfair to women than their habit of blaming men for pressure to look thin/busty/etc. is unfair to any men who don't pressure them. There are men who act as though they enjoy making stuff. (I used to be one of them.) There are women who act as though they like to look pretty. Those women could choose to not be pretty more easily than I could choose to not make unneeded stuff.

It's a peculiar social moment, taking the idea of 'nice guys finish last' and thinking:

"I finished last" - meaning, presumably, they haven't got a girlfriend, let alone a 'hot' one - "so therefore I must be nice. Therefore all the guys who have girlfriends aren't nice. They're a bunch of jerks. Therefore all girls truly want jerks, though they may insist they want a 'nice' guy'."

It's a whole bunch of wrong.

Nice Guys are also jerks. They just think they're too nice for girls to like them. There's a martyrdom to it, and a sense of entitlement, and egos way out of proportion.

The 'friendzone' is one of the more pernicious ideas of late - that being 'only' friends with a woman is some sort of punishment. If you think like that, you deserve neither girl friends nor a girlfriend.

Why does this irk some feminists (as well as non-feminists)? Because it's BS. The Nice Guys are, by and large, not nice.

I'm sure that present company is excepted.