why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

the majority of women who complain about nice guys are feminist.
far hardcore leftist.

Oh, I'm also a socialist (ie, leftist), but I'm far from being either as left as they come or as radically feminist as they come (which is a different thing than leftist).

The issue with guys who think that they are nice, but actually are not, is actually rather mainstream within the feminist community. Ask Aspie Otaku about radical feminists if you're curious - I think he researches their ideas more than I do.

In my opinion, radical feminists like so-called "nice guys" because they're easier to control. Guys that do everything to avoid confrontation won't challenge the feminist mindset of "women always rule, no matter what". Any man who dares to speak up is quickly thrown off the proverbial bus, because radical feminists are against women submitting to men for any reason. The intention of the man doesn't matter to them; if he won't be their slave, they'll do all in their power to crush him. Radical feminists are often described as "man-haters", and rightfully so; they think any man with a spine is out to manipulate them, so they try to do it first.

well,that don't surprise me. Your an Atheist,I would assume.
profile of anti-nice guy female:
feminist
liberal or leftist
atheist or non-religious

1- Most recently, the guy in question was a former marine who had done time in Iraq; he was also a very sweet man, who cooked for me and was able to intellectually challenge me in a way that few people are. Unfortunately, he needed more attention and affection than I, as an aspie, was able to give him. He quit returning my calls when I asked for a weekend to myself for an aikido seminar.
The guy before that was a successful attorney; I called it off because he had sour body odor.

Exactly: you were emotionaly dominant. The odor thing is discussible, but if you don't even get the basic points, I will not bother discussing this.

2- In case you haven't noticed yet, you're bad at pretending to be psychic. Given that you're posting on a forum for people with asperger's, this should not come as a surprise to you.

I'm not pretending to be psychic. Either another lame joke or ridiculous observation.

3- How is it chauvinistic to expect men to clean up their own urine?

It's the feeling I'm pointing out to: "Ugh! Men!" You said you felt that when you saw a toilet with pee. But what's going on is that you extrapolated the observation of your personal relationships in which you lived together with your partner to ALL men. That's prejudice.


4- See what I wrote above regarding pretending to be psychic. I have never thought that all men are the same; I have never thought that all women are the same; I have never thought that all dogs or all spiders or all goldfish are the same. I have thought that they have some commonalities (some of those groups more than others), but I have literally never thought, "all men are the same," nor have I had the impulse to treat men as if they are interchangeable.
You may not believe it, but that does not prevent it from being true. Thankfully solipsism does not control reality.

See the answers to points 2 and 3. If you still don't get it after this, I don't know what to say. It's hard to be more obvious, as long as you are willing to stop for a moment and consider what I'm saying with an objective attitude.

5- No; I'm saying that men and women are perfectly capable of being friends, and that the men who use the term "friendzone" are the ones who don't believe this. Work on your reading comprehension, dear.

No. Not only I have my comprehension skills sharp, I remember what you've said better than yourself. To be proven wrong, see the bolded sentence on point 11.

6- I have statistics to back me up. US Women, on average, commit more temporal resources to child-rearing than men do; in addition, US women's time tends to consist of more unpleasant duties like diaper changing, laundry, caring for the sick, etc. and men tend to get more pleasant duties like attending soccer games. If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem with the research, not with me.

I do not have a problem since I am openly misandrist and misogynist. You are the one who, like everyone else in this world, has these emotional impulses and still don't admit them.

7- Seriously, you need to think more rationally about this rather than jumping around emotionally and calling people names.

I'm not calling you a name that I'm not calling me. I am trying to establish, as a prior condition to examine the feminist hatred towards the reality of the friendzone, that everyone has prejudice in them. And that even though this is the case, people are not bad because of this; only if they act negatively out of the prejudice.

8- See above. Please cite where I called you a "male chauvinist."

You followed up on benificii's accusation of this. It could be the case that you dind't intend it, though. But I doubt it.

9- Being either misogynist or misandrist are characteristics that would classify someone as a bad person, in my eyes.
Your problem is that you make up stuff in your own head and think that it actually represents what goes on in other people's heads.

No. Absdolutely wrong. Basic self analysis mistake. Have you ever had the urge to punch someone? Out of all those times, how many did you act by punching? Would you say that everyone has that feeling a few times in life? If they do not act upon those feelings (or impulses, if you like) do you consider them bad people? Then are all people evil?

10- Not a joke. You said, quoted above, that you have "...dealt with this crap {your}self." If you've dealt with women's emotions and thoughts yourself, that means that you were a woman; your profile now lists you as male. Therefore, transgender.
Now you're saying that you're not transgender? Weren't you, then, lying when you said that you've dealt with being a woman?

Again I don't know if this is a continuation of a mildly amusing sarcasm or a really dim sequence of observations.

LKL wrote:

11- That's not how it's usually described. Men talk about 'being in the friendzone' when they do all kinds of mutually supportive 'friend' things with a given woman and expect her to sort of magically deduce that he's doing them because he wants to get into her pants, not because he's her friend... because, why else would a guy hang out with a gal, right? (that last bit is not, unfortunately, sarcasm; I've seen exactly that sentiment written on this forum more than once).

No, darling. A generalization is something different. That was citing actual behavior that I have seen on this forum, more than once.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ralization

See point 5. Then decide what your opinion is (flip a coin, maybe) and then we can discuss.

12-"Prejudice" is, literally, judging before evidence or experience. In this case, I am citing actual experience and cannot thus be considered "prejudiced" here.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1394259670

You judged all men based on your own experience. If someone happened to be robbed 4 times in their lives and each robber was mexican, would you say that it wouldn't be prejudiced of this person to say that ALL mexicans are robbers?

13- Even if that were true, it is a false dichotomy.
http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/f ... ilemma.php
If you want to find some awful female stereotype to label me with, try "b***h" or "ice queen," as either would be more accurate.

It's really frustrating when I use your own words to prove that you are wrong and you still don't see it. I was saying by your own standards, not by mine. As I said, you can be (and are) prejudiced and be a good person.

13- I don't agree.

You have much to learn.

Your right I do and it makes me sick! Its twisted to the point of extreme hatred and bigotry towards men! Go to Tumblr if you don't believe me. Take the femithiest for example, who advocates the castration of all males! Or Andrea Dworkin or Valarie Solanas etc. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbzF-Q_ZEDg[/youtube] These same kinds of feminists or should i call these types Femnazis or femnazitards advocate sexism bigotry and vilification towards ALL men based on the actions of the few and blame all men for everything and totally ignore the equality thing.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_5P2WwBxs8[/youtube]They deny misandry exists they think its ok to be sexist towards men and scoff at the idea of men being victims of anything.

that's not a nice guy, that's a carpet.

Actually, I wasn't referring to you, but feel free to take that shoe and wear it if it fits.

My, what diverse opinions here.

The majority of women that complain about men in general are feminists.

Really why would they care about nice guys? They wouldn't care about genuine nice guys. What threat are they??
Guys that pretend to be nice maybe a threat. But I mean they may just see them as annoying. Maybe they are doing a bit of male bashing, but that's the most if anything.

Those links you posted are feminists responding to the nice guy thing. They are not attacking nice guys. They didn't start it.

What? I wasn't dominant wrt. either guy. Neither guy was dominant over me. It is possible to have equal romantic relationships with people, just like it's possible to have friendships between men and women, contrary to what you seem to think.

Yes, you are. You keep on trying to tell me what is going on in my own head, and being flat-out wrong about it.

That would make sense only if women were equally likely to leave urine on the seat as men are, which they are not.

see above. Men are more likely to leave urine on the seat than women are. Some moreso than others, but in general, based both on my personal experience and that of pretty much any woman or man I've ever talked to, men are vastly more likely to leave urine on the toilet than women. That is experience, not prejudice. Note the "pre" in the word prejudice.


dude, you're the one who needs to stop and consider, just for a moment, that maybe other people's brains are neither exactly like yours nor exactly how you imagine them to be.



I was paraphrasing. I was describing statements that I have seen here on this forum many times - which I made clear in the parentheses.



What emotional impulses?


Please state which page of the thread, and where on the page, I supposedly did this.


I have trained in aikido for 14 years. I've punched all kinds of people in the dojo, and been punched myself. I've also kicked in a front door, thrown objects and made holes in other doors, and kicked a hole in my bedroom wall. I have gone berserk in fights with my brother.
If I had ever deliberately hurt someone, though, I would be a bad person. If I could not judge people as individuals, I would be a bad person.
As for evil, that's an entirely different concept.


Were you lying when you said that you have personally dealt with the emotions and thoughts of being a woman? Yes?

judging based on experience is post-judice, not pre-judice. By definition. I would not say that an n of 4 was statistically significant, no, but I've known considerably more than 4 men in my life. Also, what "judgement" is it, exactly, that you think that I have made about "all men," other than that they're more likely to pee on the toilet seat and not clean it up?

Darling, I differentiated "Nice Guys(tm)" from nice guys. I never said that they were the only two choices.

That may be the case, but I frankly don't think that you have either the brains or the experience to teach me anything.

If you had read the posts I made, you would know that I say that the shoe fits. Was that supposed to put me in a bad spot? What I'm saying is that everyone is prejudiced against all groups, including their own. So I'm also a female chauvinist. Maybe that makes you happy, somehow.

It's hard to teach a person who is so attached to their indoctrination that they won't stop and think.

1- In every relation _ friendship or dating _ there is a person who is dominant. Human behaviour 101.

2- I keep being flat-out right.

3- I'll adress two paragraphs in one: that post judgement is confirmation bias, not objective post judgement. Hence, a prejudice.

4- Would you please adress the point, then? (If you don't remember, it's the argument of the primate behaviour)

6- You're lying now. You must be pretty desperate.... you said explicity, in brakets, that you didn't mean to be sarcastic with that observation.

7- The emotional impulses that everyone has but that you're not even aware of. You're 38 and still not aware.

8- Do your wrok, honey, as I did mine.

9- Thank you. You just admited one of my points: you can have negative feelings and not be a bad person if you don't act based on them. Meaning, I can be a good person and have prejudice.

10- Wow you are serious!

11- You've lost the train of thought. Read the thread again because you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I was puting you in either the nice girls or the nice girls (TM) category. If you say you're in neither than you define yourself as bad person? If so, why are you even arguing about this?

12- You'd be surprised. At least I haven't lost the train of thought, nor have contradicted myself, which probably means I have more brains than you do. As for experience: with a better brain, you don't have to live as much, in order to accumulate more knowledge. But someone who doesn't listen cannot be thaught.

The way I see it is this:

If your problem is leftist feminists, that means that you are not able and/or willing to accept women as equal to men or even that some women are better than men. As far as you are concerned, a low IQ, socially degenerate male is still better than any female.

So, obviously, feminists will have an issue with that view.

Yes, I've noticed.

You are not correct. First, there academic term is "ethology," not "behavior." For humans, dominance theory is usually covered in psychology and communication classes... and, yes, I have taken both, and done well in them, as well as ethology classes. Work groups will almost always have a leader, who may or may not be "dominant" in the sense that lay people usually think about, and probably is not "dominant" in the ethological sense (controlling access to scarce resources). Other people will take on other necessary group roles: peace-maker, translator, representative, etc. In friendships and partnerships, it is unlikely for one partner or the other to be dominant in the ethological sense; one partner or the other might be the leader in some situations, and not in others. For example, with my last relationship, my boyfriend was the leader in the kitchen because he was a better cook than me. He also usually set the schedule when we were doing social activities around town. When we were camping out in the boonies, I set the schedule; this wasn't because he was "dominant" in town and I was "dominant" while camping, it was because he enjoyed town activities more than me and I enjoyed wilderness activities more than him.

But that doesn't fit your convenient little narrative of dominance and submission, does it?

Only in your own mind, honey.


This might help you:
http://dictionary.reference.com


No, actually, it's still argument about you not knowing the actual definitions of basic English words, and pretending to be psychic. Also, your fisking sucks; please take the time to use quote-brackets.


Dude. See the dictionary above. Saying 'I'm not being sarcastic' means, roughly, 'I'm not deliberately misstating this in a bitterly humorous way.' I accompanied 'I'm not being sarcastic' with 'I've seen this actual behavior on this forum.'
Seriously.


You said I was being emotional - with the implication of 'more emotional than usual,' or 'more emotional than normal,' with respect to a specific comment that I had made. Given that I have the typical Asperger's issue of not being emotional enough, I'm curious about what you specifically meant, especially with regard to that comment.

The burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim or accusation.

Not all bad feelings are equally bad, and not all bad actions are equally bad. Saying that a person can still be good if they have some prejudices... yes. But having prejudices as a minor part of your personality is a different thing from being a prejudiced person, as a major part of your personality. It's like the difference between being angry (temporary) or being an angry person (all the time).

So, yeah: you were lying.

Dude....
I'm disagreeing with you about what the point is. That doesn't make me wrong or bubble-headed. Also? saying I am neither does not automatically make me a "bad person."

No, I don't think that I would be. You haven't said a single novel, surprising, or even very interesting thing in this entire thread; you misuse basic English terminology; your logic is a complete fail; and you not only have the Aspie trait of completely lacking a Theory of Mind, but you seem not to even be capable of understanding, or to be uninterested in understanding on an intellectual level, that there is such a thing. You have done nothing but parrot pop-psychology and pretend that you are psychic, and then throw fits when yo are told that you are not psychic and that pop psychology isn't accurate.

edit: this isn't worth arguing any more, especially given that there's a problem with the usage of basic English. Modus Ponens, you get the last word for now.

Let me get this straight: a guy "[isn't] really nice" or is "clingy" if he expects - or just hopes? - to get something - anything? - back after putting out up-front for months? Heck, even my mom expects that. Note to self: she doesn't really care about me; all of that mothering was just to entrap me into paying attention to her. Same with the chocolates Sis gave me this Christmas. She probably wants me to take her to coffee again. What a jerk!

Really, if you don't want to feel obligated, then don't. I won't do anything for you either*. Call me weird, but I think it *is* pretty nice when a guy puts his life on hold and spends months courting a girl without any promise in return.

*By the way, do you have any idea what that means? My life is cheap compared to a typical girl's life, and not because I'm a slob. On the contrary, my place is usually both neater and cleaner than my female friends' places, and I have nice stuff. I just don't buy stuff for the sake of buying it, which saves a ton. If I were making things only for myself and other guys, we could shut down entire industries and much of what's needed to support them. I could just go home and ignore you rude chicks, or work no more than three days a week and spend the rest at a spa.

We could cut the roads budget in half by not trucking as much clutter, saving about $50-100 billion every year. We could cut factories and foundries that make the heavy equipment to support it; we could shut down mines, refineries, ports, shipping lanes, and naval fleets that guard them; we could shut down most STEM programs because you don't really need to re-engineer everything every six months. That by itself would save tens of billions.

Tell me when you have a real problem to solve, and I'll go back to work - but first, I'll ask: "What have you done for me lately?"

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 08 Mar 2014, 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.