why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

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.

feminist do not represent women,alot of women hate feminist.
Are they anti women,too.

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.

I said:
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.

10- If your point is that I'm pretending to be a psychic, create a new thread to make a fool out of yourself, please. This is to discuss the ridiculous denial of the friendzone. And my contention, related to this topic is that these are the feminists who fight the internal fight of denial of desires of submission to males.

11- Ugh... do I have to remind you of the pinky analogy? Not only I'm aware that people have different motivations on a certain level, I'm aware that almost all people have the same motivations on an even deeper level, with little variations. You're still at the previous level. Therefore, you're right: it is not of much gain to be discussing this _ except it's me who do not gain anything. It is fun though, I admit that.

7- No. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims that, although humans are primates, their sexual behaviour is different from the other primates. That is the extraordinary claim and you have to prove it. Not with politically correct propaganda. With facts.

OTOH, a lot of words get spoiled by a few people. I'm white, but I probably wouldn't call myself an Aryan (even though, technically, I am). I also don't see anything wrong with "white pride" other than negative associations. If "feminist" is adopted by enough nasty, destructive, narcissistic people, is it too much to ask the nicer women that you allude to to distinguish themselves from that?

your belief that everyone is compelled to hate everyone else is false. just because you feel that way you cannot assume that everyone does. this is the theory of mind business that was pointed out to you earlier that you ignored. you are a human being--but it is a logical fallacy to assume that because you are human, and you have certain feelings and react to situations in certain ways, that ALL HUMANS feel the same as you and react the same as you. For example--everyone feels pain when they hurt themselves: some people will deal with that by crying, some will jump around and swear, some will get angry at themselves. this is because human beings are UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS.



this is also a logical fallacy--you are assuming that all primates' sexual behaviour is the same: they are not. chimpanzee sexuality is quite different from that of bonobos, and they are two of the most closely related species of large primates. before you tear someone else up for their "ignorance" about primate sexuality, make sure you know what you're talking about first.

About primate sexuality, relatively fair point, although very weak. (really--how so?)I tried to google "list of matriarchal mammals" and there is nothing worth reading out of the search results. If there were many, I'm sure there would be a list (however short or long that list would be, bonobos would be on it). Not a proof, off course. This can be compared to newtonian fluids vs non-newtonian fluids. If you bring me a new compound which is fluid, I'll start by assuming it's newtonian, unless evidence suggests otherwise. In the same way, it's completely reasonable to assume that the behaviour I mentioned in primates (which, from what I gather, is the rule, not the exception; and even more compelling if you consider all mammals) is aproximately the same in humans.

Woah, 5 blog posts! And there are more!


Coming up next:
Why are feminists obsessed with Scandal?

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.

I am not sure of what was said in the subject, only caught some floating thoughts as I scanned the issues. so the argument you have with the poster is your own.

But I will say this, men and women are not built the same, we have different needs, nor only for our selves, but from each other. if this wasn't so then there would be no gender in our self identity. there is no such thing as equality between the sex's, we have different needs which helps define us and our relationships. this does not mean one sex is better or more then the other. if anything we need each other in order to grow. like two pieces of a puzzle we complement each other and the bigger picture, even though were not built the same.

i am "built" just as differently from other women as i am from men (obviously i am not speaking physiologically here because i am physiologically female). i have always FELT just as different from other women as i do from men. i don't feel i have much in common when it comes to how my mind works with what is generally regarded as "feminine", or with people who would describe themselves with that word. my needs in life never seemed to match those of my female friends growing up--nor would they now likely if i still had any female friends, which i don't. my best friend is male.

so how does your binary idea of gender deal with people like me? i guess we don't exist.