why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

This is true. However, I think that you might not be respecting trophy-wives enough; a 'good' trophy wife is a professional, and she puts a great deal of time and effort into being a trophy wife. She spends lots of time at the gym, selecting her outfits, styling her hair, and putting on makeup every day; it may even amount to hours, with no days off unless she's really sick. She has to monitor her behavior whenever she's in public, and she's responsible for public functions going well when she and her husband have guests or go out. She is, in effect, a combination of a campaign manager, a model, and a PR professional for her husband.

Ooh, get you. It wasn't covered at all.

Me: I think this and that and t'other is the case.

You: "The truth" - and this is a quote, right, a quote that I love - "is incorrect". You deny a FACT.

Me: How so? What do you mean by that?

You: You don't understand.

Now, you have dismissed what I said, but not engaged with it. I have made an effort to engage with you. How about you either engage with what I have said, or have the courtesy to stop responding? Good grief.

"The truth is incorrect". Is this some zen thing? I was never very good with those. If not, and you didn't miss a word out - again, I'm guessing 'politically', from the context - the sentence makes no sense. A quick check for definitions and synonyms of 'incorrect' gives us:

The truth is not in accordance with facts. The truth is in error. The truth is wrong. The truth is invalid. The truth is false. The truth is untrue.

I'm not entirely sure you've understood your quote. If you insist on leaving it as above, I'm quite happy to not understand it.



I've heard of that CK fella, but not the other two. Haven't heard any of them. As it is, I don't hold their opinions on any matter to be of any importance to me. I listened to the clip, I didn't find it funny. If that makes you think I don't have a clue of what comedy is, well, I'll try to get over it, and to not let you down in future.

You have rendered yourself completely irrelevant by using that term as if it were a real thing.

This is mind boggling. Let me quote myself:

I love the quote "The truth is incorrect." What is the factual truth, because it's not politically correct, gets dismissed.

Since I'm in an asperger's forum I had to put the explanation in front of it because we're not very good with these kind of interpretations. But, had you bothered to read the rest of the sentence and connect the dots, you would understand what the quote means. An example: black people have, in average, lower IQ's than jewish people. Does that mean it's a genetic trait or a cultural trait? Well, since it's politically incorrect to even consider this FACT (the difference in IQ's) the subject was not as well adressed as it should. It turns out that it can be better explained as difference in culture, economic and social status, than in genetic terms.

The thing is: the truth, many times, is ugly. But by discovering it we at least can do something about it.

But this discussion is going nowhere since page 3 or 4. Either you get it or you don't.

Anyway, Bill Burr was considered comic of the year in 2011, I think. He's still one of the most famous commedians today. Louis CK is THE most famous comic at the moment. Kevin Hart is very well known. And, obviously, they're all very funny. Your attitude of "I don't know them so their opinion is not important to me" is the equivalent of a "lay man" saying "I don't know Grothendieck, so what he says about mathematics has no importance to me".

I'm geting bored...

I get it now, as you have essentially changed the sentence. "The truth, many times, is ugly" at least has some sense to it. "The truth is incorrect" does not. Either you need a qualifying word before 'incorrect', or to have 'incorrect' itself in quotes. Otherwise it is gibberish. I guessed what it meant from context. I had to guess, as the line on it's own was, again, gibberish. I'm sure it made sense in your head. It's just that it didn't on screen.

You still haven't told me what FACT I have denied and dismissed. A little unfair. Our discussion might go somewhere if you did so.

I don't think it's politically incorrect to consider the IQ FACT, more that, well, what is to be made of the fact. Is there even such a thing as IQ is supposed to be? If so, can it be measured? etc.

For sake of argument, I will agree to your statement that, on average, Jewish people do better than Black people on the same IQ test. And, well, what? What is there to talk about? Do you consider it important? Why? Etc. I don't mean to drag this into a discussion on IQ, by the way. I was using your FACT to make the point that, even where we agree on a FACT, we may disagree on its importance and relevance and meaning. The problem is when one party attributes a particular importance to a FACT, and thinks that, actually, the importance is inherent in the FACT, when it has actually been attributed. But when you won't tell me what FACT I have dismissed, we can't even begin to talk about importance, meaning etc.

Either you get it or you don't.



I can only suppose you're writing as though I have any interest in the US comedy world, and the opinions of those therein. I don't. I'm not entirely sure why I should, either. If I wanted to, I would. I don't want to, so I don't. I don't know who Grothendieck is, nor what he says about mathematics. I don't suppose such a thing would interest me, assuming I could understand it. It may well be important to me, if he says things that could impact upon my life in a practical way. What some comedians I haven't heard think of another comedian I have heard a little of but didn't care for - try as I might, but I can't see how what those opinions are will impact practically on my life.

But then, there are many such things - people having opinions about things I don't have much interest in. I have enough things I'm interested in, and enough people whose opinions I deem worth considering to keep me quite busy, ta.

Do you know Simon Price's opinion of the third Manic Street Preachers album? Do you even care? Do you even know who any of those people are? I'd be pleasantly surprised if you did, but I'm not going to opine that you haven't got a clue about music if you don't, and that you really should and that, honestly, it'd be like a layman not being interested in Mary Warnock's views on voluntary euthanasia.

See, I'm not you, and you're not me. I think we're both relieved at that (rather beautiful) FACT.

(Edit for removal of repetitions, and the typos I've noticed thus far)

I call non sequitur. And hey, at least I know what my mythical beings are supposed to be You don't even know what real men's rights activists are, and you kept misusing the term after I called you out with links and data. On what intellectual level is that relevant?

Besides, you've avoided the serious issues in the post, and all others for that matter. For example, I still have no straight answer from you as to whether you support a constitutional amendment to ban conscription, since according to you "THEREISNODRAFT!! !! !!AAAARRRGGGHH!! !!"

And that is a verbatim quote

P.S. - I've already refuted that elsewhere (with actual facts): http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5970513 ... t=#5970513

The fact that you can bring up limits in the case of a non-calculus problem (see link) doesn't make you smart. It makes you insecure.

Besides which, it doesn't matter. I gave you a chance to put your money where your mouth is: If there'll never be a draft, then ban it. We've already covered why Congress can't do that: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5961370 ... t=#5961370

You have nothing to lose if you're serious (and relevant).

This thread is still bizarre and depressing as ever.

For what it's worth, I think the draft is utter crap and I'd support banning it.

If not, I think women should have to register as well as men.

well,the thread was Original about feminist and their obsessed
hatred with ''nice guys''aka struggling lonely guys.

I agree.
Not because there is any actual risk to men of being drafted, but because it's a wast of taxpayer time and energy to continue administering a pointless registry.

You apparently don't know what "non sequitur" means.

You did? I didn't notice. You must not have done a very good job.

when did you ask me about a constitutional amendment to ban conscription? Mainly you've just been arguing, 'AAAARRRGGGHH, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION IS THE SAME AS A DRAFT, AND IT'S SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UNFAIR TO MEN!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!'
That is not a verbatim quote, and I will not claim that it is, because I know what a verbatim quote is. Likewise, notice that I used paraphrase marks ('...') rather than quotation marks ("...") because I know how to use punctuation.

Apparently you are also unfamiliar with the use of metaphors.


See above. Unlike you, Xfiles Geek actually proposed some solutions rather than railing against the supposed unfairness of it all.

Feminists do not have an "obsessed hatred" with Nice Guys, though you (and a few others on here) seem to be somewhat obsessed with feminism (well, more like a mix of the simple fact it exists, and various straw versions of it). The matter will bother various feminists and non-feminists to varying degrees.

As I have explained, the key point is that Nice Guys are often not nice. So that they call themselves so, frankly, rankles. And that they are not nice, yet insist their being so is the reason for their lack of luck with the ladies, rankles all the more. The fault is in the women who constantly reject them, not themselves. Because the only thing that can explain their constant rejection is that women don't really want a 'nice' guy. There is then often a jump from this to the assertion that feminism is somehow false, a lie, because apparently all women want jerks.

Thing is, 'nice' is hardly enough to build a romantic relationship on. And, as noted, the Nice Guys aren't even nice. They have made an identity based on their inability to understand their being (romantically) rejected.

I've been a "struggling lonely guy". They have my sympathies. I have not been a Nice Guy. They're a bunch of jerks tarnishing the perfectly good idea of being nice.

Women have had to fight tooth and nail to be allowed behind combat lines in the military and it wasn't feminists preventing it from happening. It was the men in charge of the military.

If and when conscription becomes an issue again, it will be feminists advocating for equal inclusion while the men will oppose it. Just like it was in the 80s when this last was a real issue.

I love the hypocrasy of people complaining about how women don't have to worry about dying in war when they are usually the same people actively advocating keeping women out of the military in the first place.

^^^^This.

it doesn't matter if these ''nice guys''are jerks or not,the fact
they are lonely and struggling,and most often omega,''low status
men''.There are tons of sexist alpha males,that very rarely get
chewed out by feminist.Feminist have a hatred towards unpopular guys.