Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Nice guys and feminists

Page 2 of 6 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

02 Sep 2012, 2:28 pm

Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Maybe women don't like to be stereotyped? Maybe men don't like it either? Maybe they don't like to be forced to confom to radically and arbitrarily different cultural conventions because of biological differences?


This is the example of "not practicing what you preach". While no one wants to be stereotyped, everyone is stereotyping others. The evidence that women stereotype men is the simple fact that they won't date a man who made bad first impression. If they were to get him to know as individual, first impression won't be enough. But if they are to have a stereotype that men fall only into boxes A, B, and C, then first impression would be enough to "rule out" boxes A and B and "conclude" that it has to be box C. And once they know its box C, they know they wont date a given man. For example, their friend's friend had been dating someone from box C for 2 years and it never worked. So since they have a "stereotype" that everyone from box C are exactly the same, they don't have to test their assumption with a given new individual.

Where did I say anything about dating? Your answer does not relate with the quote.

You will notice that attributing personality traits to someone after observing their behaviour is not the same thing as attributing personality traits to somneone after observing their gender.



Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

02 Sep 2012, 2:49 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Where did I say anything about dating? Your answer does not relate with the quote.


I never said you mentioned dating. You mentioned general topic of stereotyping, and then I was the one to point out that dating is one example of stereotyping.

enrico_dandolo wrote:
You will notice that attributing personality traits to someone after observing their behaviour is not the same thing as attributing personality traits to somneone after observing their gender.


Making judgement by observing behavior is still stereotype. In particular, you are stereotyping the entire humanity as being robots that are exactly the same every day. You assume that there are no changeable beings who might have bad day and still be completely different next day.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

02 Sep 2012, 3:03 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fz3zFqLc3E[/youtube] :lol:


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

02 Sep 2012, 4:42 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
I tend to have the habit of placing women on a pedastool which people say is a bad habit as a result I get walked over and I tend to think less of my self worth as opposed to others. Like I am not important and my only purpose is for the woman to be happy.

Oh, gods, speaking from personal experience a pedestal is NOT a comfortable place to be. Not a lot of room to move around up there, not to mention lonely.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

02 Sep 2012, 5:32 pm

Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
You will notice that attributing personality traits to someone after observing their behaviour is not the same thing as attributing personality traits to somneone after observing their gender.


Making judgement by observing behavior is still stereotype. In particular, you are stereotyping the entire humanity as being robots that are exactly the same every day. You assume that there are no changeable beings who might have bad day and still be completely different next day.

Obviously. Stereotyping is necessary, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a difference between a) attributing to specific individuals from observation and b) attributing traits to groups, and thence to every individual of that group. The former is only a tiny generalisation without further consequences, mainly a shortcut for the brain. The latter is the gateway to discrimination.
"Alice is a bad driver; she had an accident last week." / "Alice is a bad driver; she is a woman."
"Bob is a macho; he made sexist remarks when I saw him." / "Bob is a macho; he is a man."
"Phuc is a great student; he got an A+ in the exam." / "Phuc is a great student; he is an Asian."



Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

02 Sep 2012, 10:42 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
You will notice that attributing personality traits to someone after observing their behaviour is not the same thing as attributing personality traits to somneone after observing their gender.


Making judgement by observing behavior is still stereotype. In particular, you are stereotyping the entire humanity as being robots that are exactly the same every day. You assume that there are no changeable beings who might have bad day and still be completely different next day.

Obviously. Stereotyping is necessary, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a difference between a) attributing to specific individuals from observation and b) attributing traits to groups, and thence to every individual of that group. The former is only a tiny generalisation without further consequences, mainly a shortcut for the brain. The latter is the gateway to discrimination.
"Alice is a bad driver; she had an accident last week." / "Alice is a bad driver; she is a woman."
"Bob is a macho; he made sexist remarks when I saw him." / "Bob is a macho; he is a man."
"Phuc is a great student; he got an A+ in the exam." / "Phuc is a great student; he is an Asian."


If you attribute it to individual, the individual in question will be VERY VERY hurt, but if you attribute it to a group the individual that is part of the group will be only slightly hurt -- after all he doesn't have to take the group stereotype personally.

I am BY FAR more hurt over things people attribute to me as individual then I would EVER be hurt by what I suffer as "part of the group".



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

02 Sep 2012, 11:13 pm

"Nice guy" is a vague term to begin with. I consider myself a nice guy but I go apeshit in a heartbeat as soon as I'm disrespected. This has gotten me labelled as*hole and douche many a times. I've even been called Jekyll and Hyde for Christ's sake! Labeling is notoriously unreliable since people will label you as they see convenient rather than as they see fit. It unnerves them to see a "nice guy" break out of a predictable mold so they would rather hold it against you than admit their notions about nice people were wrong.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 02 Sep 2012, 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

02 Sep 2012, 11:18 pm

Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
You will notice that attributing personality traits to someone after observing their behaviour is not the same thing as attributing personality traits to somneone after observing their gender.


Making judgement by observing behavior is still stereotype. In particular, you are stereotyping the entire humanity as being robots that are exactly the same every day. You assume that there are no changeable beings who might have bad day and still be completely different next day.

Obviously. Stereotyping is necessary, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a difference between a) attributing to specific individuals from observation and b) attributing traits to groups, and thence to every individual of that group. The former is only a tiny generalisation without further consequences, mainly a shortcut for the brain. The latter is the gateway to discrimination.
"Alice is a bad driver; she had an accident last week." / "Alice is a bad driver; she is a woman."
"Bob is a macho; he made sexist remarks when I saw him." / "Bob is a macho; he is a man."
"Phuc is a great student; he got an A+ in the exam." / "Phuc is a great student; he is an Asian."


If you attribute it to individual, the individual in question will be VERY VERY hurt, but if you attribute it to a group the individual that is part of the group will be only slightly hurt -- after all he doesn't have to take the group stereotype personally.

I am BY FAR more hurt over things people attribute to me as individual then I would EVER be hurt by what I suffer as "part of the group".

It's not a question of "hurting" anyone; after all, some stereotypes are positive. It's a question of fairness and equity -- or, in a way, of accuracy.



Roman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298

02 Sep 2012, 11:37 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
You will notice that attributing personality traits to someone after observing their behaviour is not the same thing as attributing personality traits to somneone after observing their gender.


Making judgement by observing behavior is still stereotype. In particular, you are stereotyping the entire humanity as being robots that are exactly the same every day. You assume that there are no changeable beings who might have bad day and still be completely different next day.

Obviously. Stereotyping is necessary, don't get me wrong.

However, there is a difference between a) attributing to specific individuals from observation and b) attributing traits to groups, and thence to every individual of that group. The former is only a tiny generalisation without further consequences, mainly a shortcut for the brain. The latter is the gateway to discrimination.
"Alice is a bad driver; she had an accident last week." / "Alice is a bad driver; she is a woman."
"Bob is a macho; he made sexist remarks when I saw him." / "Bob is a macho; he is a man."
"Phuc is a great student; he got an A+ in the exam." / "Phuc is a great student; he is an Asian."


If you attribute it to individual, the individual in question will be VERY VERY hurt, but if you attribute it to a group the individual that is part of the group will be only slightly hurt -- after all he doesn't have to take the group stereotype personally.

I am BY FAR more hurt over things people attribute to me as individual then I would EVER be hurt by what I suffer as "part of the group".

It's not a question of "hurting" anyone; after all, some stereotypes are positive. It's a question of fairness and equity -- or, in a way, of accuracy.


Well and its not fair to judge someone based off of first impressions. If someone had a bad day and it happened to be the first day you met them, then they are forever stuck with "bad first impression". That is so unfair. It would have been a lot more fair if first impression didn't matter and only the impression built over YEARS did; and it would also be more fair if even after several years people were open to changing their opinion if they see the behavior of said person changing.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

03 Sep 2012, 12:06 am

Roman wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
It's not a question of "hurting" anyone; after all, some stereotypes are positive. It's a question of fairness and equity -- or, in a way, of accuracy.


Well and its not fair to judge someone based off of first impressions. If someone had a bad day and it happened to be the first day you met them, then they are forever stuck with "bad first impression". That is so unfair. It would have been a lot more fair if first impression didn't matter and only the impression built over YEARS did; and it would also be more fair if even after several years people were open to changing their opinion if they see the behavior of said person changing.

So if I want to know if someone is a suitable friend, I need to develop a relationship before I can decide if I want to be friends with them?

The point is to find adequate criteria to attribute traits, not to make it impossible. When evaluating behaviour, observing behaviour seems quite right.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 Sep 2012, 12:27 am

some things can be taken as red flags regardless of the type of day a person is having.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

03 Sep 2012, 4:55 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTfg1I1YWLY[/youtube] :lol:


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

03 Sep 2012, 6:13 am

Roman wrote:
. If someone had a bad day and it happened to be the first day you met them, then they are forever stuck with "bad first impression". That is so unfair..


It's very fair. How somebody handles a bad day is a good way to judge a person. I stay far away from somebody who handles a bad day by blaming it on everybody else and want to be around somebody who handles a bad day by trying to find solutions, to give just two examples. A bad day really brings out a person's inner character quickly.



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

03 Sep 2012, 7:02 am

AspieOtaku - I know it's hard to change habits, but don't put anyone on a pedestal. Doesn't mean you shouldn't think well of someone, pay them compliments, or so on. But not the pedestal. Most people won't like it and could well resent you for it, and you really don't want to get involved with the ones that do like it.

Roman - It's not unfair to take a first impression of someone. It is necessary. If you feel hard done by in a particular case - you weren't at your average, let alone your best - make a sincere explanation and ask for another chance. The woman has no obligation to grant you that second chance, and if she doesn't, maybe see it that you wouldn't have gotten along anyway.

---

Being 'nice' means treating them as a person, as a human, not as a means to an end, be it getting laid or to fill the aching void within us all. We should be nice because it is a good thing in itself, because it shows respect for ourselves and others. If others don't appreciate our being nice, it is their loss. It is not respectful of a person to let them treat you as a doormat, or a walking wallet.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

03 Sep 2012, 11:47 am

No one has any inherent moral obligation to be "friends" with anyone else.

No one has any inherent moral obligation to date/have sex with anyone else.

Human relationships are not a matter of "fairness." I am not required to give every single person who approaches me a lengthy "job interview" just to make sure I didn't get the wrong "first impression." If some idiot with over-powering body odor, dirty clothes, giant pit stains, who won't stop babbling about Pokemon cards comes up to me in a bar, I'm not hanging around just to make sure he's not the serial killer I think he is. I'm fine with his resulting "hurt feelings" as "hurt feelings" are a part of life and human relationships are not a matter of "fairness."

Anyway......

Nice guy- a guy who is nice.

"Nice guy"- an overbearing narcissist who thinks women "owe" him sex if he holds open the door for them, and who subsequently cries and throws temper-tantrums when the fairer sex doesn't find an over-grown, self-absorbed toddler in a man's body the least bit attractive.

Glad I could clear that up. Tootles.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

03 Sep 2012, 11:55 am

Yeah it seems like so called "nice guys" either have a sense of entitlement that's inflated or deflated. Really makes me wonder how many guys are labelled as*holes just for having boundaries :roll:. I notice a lot of them define themselves as nice guys as if that's all there is to them. Like that's it? Don't you have some sort of a personality?