posted
Define human being. And state the difference between biological differences, psychological differences, and sociological differences among the sexes and sex variants.
Now discuss what's outdated. What related to that is due to physical or biological propensity? What are due to outdated social mores?
Bah. Dating in the information age is stupid.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite the contrary. Rather than relying on authoritarian religious doctrine or blunt tradition instead of even considering those questions, now some of us apes have begun to ask them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A thinking, rational creature capable of making his or her own decisions. Apparently, you can even converse with them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I am really curious about whether fat chicks rate above or below inanimate objects on your pecking order of desirability scale. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Define human being. And state the difference between biological differences, psychological differences, and sociological differences among the sexes and sex variants.
Now discuss what's outdated. What related to that is due to physical or biological propensity? What are due to outdated social mores?
Bah. Dating in the information age is stupid.
Let's be clear: these have *always* been some of the questions necessary for human romantic interaction. Or human interaction generally, really. If dating is stupid now, it was equally stupid a hundred years ago or a thousand-humans not having changed much in these fundamental ways.
Except perhaps in their culture. In which case dating might not have been stupid a hundred years ago, but only because culture and religion mandated answers for these questions, and people either from fear of earthly or other punishments committed to believing them. You skip daintily around, Aros, sometimes claiming a 'strategy of hyperbole', sometimes claiming to be plainly speaking your mind, making blanket statements about both genders as a whole and then qualifying them later, so it's frankly difficult for me to know the answer to this question: is *that* what you're pining for?
For a time when those questions didn't actually have true answers, but answers humans were taught were true and thus believed them? One cannot help but wonder just how much of the things that peek through in your remarks is simple trolling (because, yeah, it's totes everyone else's fault that you troll and mislead) such as the remarks kmbboots noticed, and how much is an earnest pining for a 'simpler' time when one could open a door for a woman and if she objected in any way, she was somehow deficient.
(Something of a shame, isn't it, that that thread is gone. Now my own statements about what transpired there have equal validity to your own.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm skipping over the last bit of repulsive generalizations because there's something from earlier that I meant to come back to and didn't have time for.
One of the things you keep bringing up, Aros, is that maybe these guys have poor social skills and react badly to rejection, but the woman should understand that and give them a break and not ruin the friendship over it.
Have you considered that maybe a lot of these women also have poor social skills? Why should they be expected to be capable of dealing with an out of the blue emotional outpouring with patience and grace? When you're surprised by something you weren't expecting, isn't it fairly normal to not know what to say, even for fairly well-adjusted people?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You skip daintily around, Aros, sometimes claiming a 'strategy of hyperbole', sometimes claiming to be plainly speaking your mind, making blanket statements about both genders as a whole and then qualifying them later, so it's frankly difficult for me to know the answer to this question: is *that* what you're pining for?
For a time when those questions didn't actually have true answers, but answers humans were taught were true and thus believed them? One cannot help but wonder just how much of the things that peek through in your remarks is simple trolling (because, yeah, it's totes everyone else's fault that you troll and mislead) such as the remarks kmbboots noticed, and how much is an earnest pining for a 'simpler' time when one could open a door for a woman and if she objected in any way, she was somehow deficient.
(Something of a shame, isn't it, that that thread is gone. Now my own statements about what transpired there have equal validity to your own.)
I like that you called me dainty.
So . . . most people here use blanket statements that I feel aren't universally applicable. I guess I should feel honored that I CAN rile people and have so many people argue against me. From my perspective, I want to analyze a subject. I want to look at it through a bunch of lenses, from a bunch of perspectives and a bunch of viewpoints. This forum allows me the opportunity to do that. I can "try on" a number of different metaphors and mental constructs to approach a problem from different directions and form an opinion on a topic I'm not familiar with. Or to challenge my own assumptions on one that I do.
Trolling? Only inasmuch as my constantly changing viewpoint bothers some people and causes me some level of delight. When I may seem to be on one side and then shift to the devil's advocate. F. Scott Fitzgerald stated that the mark of a first-rate intellect is to hold opposing views on the same topic. I don't claim to be first-rate, but I don't come here with a finite view that I espouse and try to "sell" to others. Most people don't discuss to learn -- they discuss to teach.
And, yes, I constantly modify my logic, my qualifiers, and the scope of my arguments. This is a broad topic, and I don't actually have an opinion on it. A lot of people are addressing a lot of details, and most of them are being rather vague. I don't expect that I will present a perfect, unified front when I am "arguing against" multiple people at once. I firmly expect that I come off rather schizophrenic.
But my point has had nothing to do with "nice guys". Most of the details on the micro level have been in opposition to various threads of thought. On the macro level, I have maintained an opinion that memes and stereotypes are dangerous.
I would concur that my aims and those of most of the posters are at odds. Though I feel my tactics are similar, my strategy is not. And no, I don't generally feel altogether successful.
If I offend, I'm truly sorry. But the only reason I'm here is to think, use everyone here as a sounding board for interesting new ideas, and form new opinions (many of which I'll discard at some point). Then again, I can't see another useful point to being here -- other than sharing news and reviews.
I also apologize for my stream of consciousness post. I try to take a little more time with my writing, but I'm busy today.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm skipping over the last bit of repulsive generalizations because there's something from earlier that I meant to come back to and didn't have time for.
One of the things you keep bringing up, Aros, is that maybe these guys have poor social skills and react badly to rejection, but the woman should understand that and give them a break and not ruin the friendship over it.
Have you considered that maybe a lot of these women also have poor social skills? Why should they be expected to be capable of dealing with an out of the blue emotional outpouring with patience and grace? When you're surprised by something you weren't expecting, isn't it fairly normal to not know what to say, even for fairly well-adjusted people?
Yes, I agree. I'm not arguing that their reaction isn't human. Just that it isn't optimal. I don't expect everyone to be perfect.
I would only say that the meme is a mental crutch, a shortcut. When we rely on a stereotype, we think we can put someone in a box. The meme perpetrates the stereotype that the man is ACTIVELY using friendship as a means to procure sex. This isn't always the case. If a woman uses the meme as a mental shortcut, she might write off an otherwise good dude. I just think that sucks.
But it is what it is. . . .
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't really understand 1) why it makes the slightest bit of difference whether he is doing it actively or subconsciously or 2) why it "sucks" for her to write off "an otherwise good dude." The nature of dating is that we have to write off the vast majority of people we meet. Writing someone off because they have one trait that is undesirable to you, even if they have other good traits, isn't a flaw; it's the selection process functioning smoothly.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: I guess I don't really understand 1) why it makes the slightest bit of difference whether he is doing it actively or subconsciously or 2) why it "sucks" for her to write off "an otherwise good dude." The nature of dating is that we have to write off the vast majority of people we meet. Writing someone off because they have one trait that is undesirable to you, even if they have other good traits, isn't a flaw; it's the selection process functioning smoothly.
1- I am saying that it is entirely possible he isn't doing it at all.
2- Because someone upset with the outcome of another person's behavior can lash out. A girl gets mad and trashes someone's reputation because he's a "nice guy" when he doesn't deserve it. At the least, this can result in social inconvenience. At most, it can result in suicide due to bullying.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
You seem to be seriously advocating not discussing a real and pressing problem, because some guy might be mistaken for having that problem and be socially inconvenienced? Do you realize how crazy that logic sounds? It's like saying, "lets just all pretend alchoholism doesn't exist, or else some girl might get mad at me and tell everyone I'm an alchoholic!" Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stream of consciousness is one thing. That, on the other hand, was an often internally contradictory pile of horse puckey, Aros. It isn't a 'position' to say 'this is just hyperbole' and then claim 'it's my actual position'. It's not an enlightened assumption of contrary positions, it's trolling mixed in somewhere with your actual thoughts on a given issue-you've admitted as much.
Right now your stance is basically that whenever you say something stupid or repellant-which has been more than once on this topic-why, that just your way of examining more positions! Or it's hyperbole. Or it's a principled reaction against forum attitudes. Or it amuses you and that's why you do it.
So please, just spare us the self-important grandiosity in the future and just state your case, and say what you like, and skip over the parts when you claim for whatever that hour's reason is that you didn't mean *that* particular thing, you're just exploring! I'm not the only one who remembers the door opening discussion. This dancing you're doing is much closer to your actual opinions than you admit. Feel free to muster up the minimal nerve necessary to stop hiding it anytime.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to hear about one example anywhere ever where a man was bullied to suicide over nice guy behavior. I suspect sole time in your next posts this too will be another stance that is disclaimed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm skipping over the last bit of repulsive generalizations because there's something from earlier that I meant to come back to and didn't have time for.
One of the things you keep bringing up, Aros, is that maybe these guys have poor social skills and react badly to rejection, but the woman should understand that and give them a break and not ruin the friendship over it.
Have you considered that maybe a lot of these women also have poor social skills? Why should they be expected to be capable of dealing with an out of the blue emotional outpouring with patience and grace? When you're surprised by something you weren't expecting, isn't it fairly normal to not know what to say, even for fairly well-adjusted people?
Yes, I agree. I'm not arguing that their reaction isn't human. Just that it isn't optimal. I don't expect everyone to be perfect.
I would only say that the meme is a mental crutch, a shortcut. When we rely on a stereotype, we think we can put someone in a box. The meme perpetrates the stereotype that the man is ACTIVELY using friendship as a means to procure sex. This isn't always the case. If a woman uses the meme as a mental shortcut, she might write off an otherwise good dude. I just think that sucks.
But it is what it is. . . .
I actually doubt many women are thinking about the "meme" when this happens to them, if they are aware of it at all. Like you said, it's not like every guy out there acts like this. And people aren't generally waiting around for their friends/aquaintences to fulfill some role they've read about on the internet.
What happens is a guy asks a female friend out, she says no, and he acts poorly about it either then or in the future. She deals with it as best she can, maybe successfully maybe not, and then perhaps later comes across a discussion of the "Nice Guy" thing and recognizes some amount of her experience in what other people are talking about. At that point, if it happens to her again, she might handle it better the next time, but she probably won't Because when it's happening, it's awkward and unexpected and you don't know exactly what's going on or how to react and you're acting like a person and treating the other person like a person, not a meme.
What you seem to be objecting to is how people are talking about something. In order to talk about things, you generally have to make generalizations. There are people who act this way, and it's annoying. There are people who act that way. It generally helps to do this, it generally doesn't help to do that. Most people aren't going to lay the specific details of their dating/non-dating lives out in this kind of forum, because 1) it's rude to the other people involved 2) it would take too long to type and 3) it's not actually any more helpful than speaking in generalities is. That doesn't mean that the people involved are heartless or insensitive or "following a meme" when they actually interact with other people in real life. Seems pretty unlikely, really.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should differentiate between "nice guy" behavior and the exaggerated reaction to the behavior itself from feminists and white knights. Is there anything women do wrong when it comes to dating that people here are all too eager to criticize and label? Feminists and their white knights can always complain about men's behavior...always. If a man is forceful and blunt and immediately hits on chicks, he's a boor who "objectivies" women. If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy." Women, as a class, significantly control social belonging, so it isn't a surprise that many men (white knights) would be eager to defend their whims.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
Still dealing with romantic and sexual rejection by pretending it's the whole society that's messed up, rather than you? Rhetorical question, that, no need to answer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy."
This is not the definition of a nice guy. Its the definition of a quiet, likely shy guy.
A "Nice Guy" may initially behave this way but earns the title when he responds to rejection with insults, passive-aggressiveness, and other such actions that are very much NOT NICE.
Stop trying to change the definition in an attempt to reframe the debate.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Eh, I have lots of opinions. But I generally feel like the other person has a stronger opinion:
Wife: What do you want to eat. Me: Anything, dear. What would you like. W: I don't care either. You pick. M: Okay . . . Chinese. W: I don't really feel like Chinese. M: Okay . . . what do you want. W: I said I don't care. Anything is fine. M: Mexican? W: Too heavy. M: Italian? W: Too greasy. M: Barbecue W: <dirty look> M: So what do you want? W: I honestly don't care. If you want to eat at one of THOSE place, I really don't mind. But soup sounds good. M: So . . . Marie Calenders? W: No. <pause> How about that place down by Home Depot?
If you suspect that the other person has a preference and you're easy going, you'd think that you could just let them pick. But the lady doesn't want to be bossy. So it turns into a guessing game.
It's like you were in the car with us last week....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: We should differentiate between "nice guy" behavior and the exaggerated reaction to the behavior itself from feminists and white knights. Is there anything women do wrong when it comes to dating that people here are all too eager to criticize and label? Feminists and their white knights can always complain about men's behavior...always. If a man is forceful and blunt and immediately hits on chicks, he's a boor who "objectivies" women. If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy." Women, as a class, significantly control social belonging, so it isn't a surprise that many men (white knights) would be eager to defend their whims.
But just to hasten another inevitable banning...
First, it's a dishonest, childish, transparent gimmick, your labeling of disagreeing men as white knights. At once you imply that they're simply lackeys, unworthy of consideration, and thus you secure yourself from having to deal with inevitable direct challenges to your misogynistic self-pitying claptrap. Women, of course, don't have to be listened to at all if they have a different opinion about an issue dealing with gender interaction, but you need a method to sidestep challenges from your own gender.
Let's see. Women aren't a class anymore than men are. What an absurd position. If they *were*, and if they controlled 'social belonging' (which of course will mean whatever you wish it to mean at the moment), why on earth do the overwhelming majority of stories, wealth, political power, rest in the hands of men? Because, you know, they do your inevitable 'women choose not to!' bull notwithstanding.
You're not fighting a good fight, Clive. You're nt fighting a cause that can be wom, which is good because it's a terrible one. Women are, as generations pass, steadily approaching parity with men in terms of social, political, economic, and sexual power. It's happening. Even if your fight was a good one-and it's not, it's actually pretty vile-you would be doomed to failure.
Instead of railing at conditions you will never, ever change-conditions that by refusing to adapt to, you ensure your own unhappiness-you simply quietly give up just a little bit of pride and change, just a little? Note I didn't say 'dignity' because there's nothing dignified in wishing for less dignity for an entire gender, but pride. No one but you would even need to know. Whichever rejection you're recoiling from, whether it was overt or simply one you imagined would happen, doesn't have have to be just one more in a long line. It can be one of the first of the last.
Or you can simply return here regularly, amusing and irritating pretty much everyone while exposing the rot and sadness at the core of this worldview of yours, and make BlackBlade work for the lay he's not getting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hi there, Sa'eed.
Still dealing with romantic and sexual rejection by pretending it's the whole society that's messed up, rather than you? Rhetorical question, that, no need to answer.
It's part of Red Pill wisdom that the men complain the loudest about the current sexual marketplace are the men who lose out.
Perhaps many more other men aren't eager to complain because of the cackling/shaming from the likes of men who are all too eager to seek social approval from women through white knight behvior. These so called "white knights" defend everything women do and find a way to criticize anything men do so long as women signal that they disapprove of this behavior.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: I'm not Sa'eed. I agree with Sa'eed's views though.
Yeah, you are. We've been through this before. The entire time I've been on Hatrack, you are literally the only person who has ever donned this costume of misogyny masquerading as an authentic rational cultural movement. Like, over ten years now I think. The only time it comes up is from you, or you as eventually admitted when you cop to it.
As for 'white knight' behavior, you're kidding yourself if you think exposing your misogyny and insecurity wins me any kind of romance/sexual currency of approval, or whatever. In fact of the women I might be interested in, most would likely view my relish in dissing you unfavorably. No, this is because I enjoy an argument, because you're an embarrassment to my gender, and because I feel there is some slight social value in speaking up bluntly, even online, against stupid and da feels ideas such as yours. The truth the importance of these motives to me is the reverse of what I recognize is the true importance of them in general.
When I point out the in-effect or even poorly disguised racism and class warfare aspects of, say, voter ID laws, it's not because I'm currying favor with Latinos. When I disagree with hate speech laws it's not because I'm sucking up to the ACLU. And when I point out the misogyny you've exposed yourself over various names, it's not to get a VIP guest of honor seat at the next sisterhood meeting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: If he's subtle and tries to be friendly and "nice" (or is hesistant to make a direct move) over a period of time he is a "nice guy."
A "Nice Guy" may initially behave this way but earns the title when he responds to rejection with insults, passive-aggressiveness, and other such actions that are very much NOT NICE.
I have been recently going over the "nice guys of OK Cupid" blog which totally brought this whole cliche more into the mainstream a little over a year ago. A lot of those guys seem like regular blokes, who are laughed at merely because they dare pine about not having love in their profiles. There was no way to know how they'd react to rejection. So many people (mainly feminists and white knights) were okay with the cackling/shaming that it even made some decent liberals uncomfortable:
quote:Originally posted by hilary hahn fan: I'm not Sa'eed. I agree with Sa'eed's views though.
As for 'white knight' behavior, you're kidding yourself if you think exposing your misogyny and insecurity wins me any kind of romance/sexual currency of approval, or whatever.
It's not necessarily a romance/sexual award. White knight behaivor is an amoral status game. Regardless of the merits, a white knight sees himself as gaining status points for publicly defending the whims of women, because women have more value than the men who would directly or indirectly criticize them.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole "nice guy" phenomonon is so interesting. Here is one perspective taken from a user who commented on the last of my links:
quote: “Nice guys” are basically approval seekers. Approval-seekers are very easy to bully because they don’t stand up to bullies, but instead try to placate and please them. “Nice guys” seek approval in particular from women. Feminist bullies call such men misogynists who think they’re entitled to sex, not because it’s true, but because they know it hurts, and they know the “nice guy” will respond by trying ever harder to earn their approval, by doing what women say they want and ever more effacing his sexual desire, and thus leave himself open to more accusations of misogyny and entitlement to sex. And the cycle continues until the nice guy finally gets fed up with this treatment, at which point the bully says this shows he was never nice in the first place.
Bullies, of course, feel the need to believe the people they pick on deserve it. Hence the inordinate attention feminists give to justifying hating “nice guys”. We need to find ways of training men out of approval-seeking behaviour, for the sake of their own happiness. But feminists who weigh in on the issue are simply bullies and they can **** off.
quote: I’d add a couple of things to what Ally said. One, it assumes that male sexual interest is innately selfish and hostile, i.e. that wanting to have a romantic/sexual relationship with someone is incompatible with liking them. It also comes from a position of female privilege where, not having to make the approaches, you can believe that relationships “just happen”. They don’t. Men, as the designated approachers, have to make them happen, while pretending we aren’t so as not to disturb women’s said privilege. This is a double bind that men find themselves in, that “nice guys” can’t cope with, and that women are apparently oblivious to.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Now I am really curious about whether fat chicks rate above or below inanimate objects on your pecking order of desirability scale.
It depends on the chick and the inanimate object. Are we talking Star Jones and a footstool? That's a tough one.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would love to hear about one example anywhere ever where a man was bullied to suicide over nice guy behavior. I suspect sole time in your next posts this too will be another stance that is disclaimed.
Sole time? Or do you mean soul time? Should I cue the James Brown?
I don't know if there is a specific example -- especially as "nice guys" don't really exist. But I'm sure nobody has ever committed suicide over women scumming their reputation. You're totally right.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Or you can simply return here regularly, amusing and irritating pretty much everyone while exposing the rot and sadness at the core of this worldview of yours, and make BlackBlade work for the lay he's not getting.
Dude, I think you meant "pay", here.
As for the rest of you. Aros, how very charming of you. And new Clive-Alt, there is a huge difference between being worthy of my esteem and grovelling for my approval.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would love to hear about one example anywhere ever where a man was bullied to suicide over nice guy behavior. I suspect sole time in your next posts this too will be another stance that is disclaimed.
Sole time? Or do you mean soul time? Should I cue the James Brown?
I don't know if there is a specific example -- especially as "nice guys" don't really exist. But I'm sure nobody has ever committed suicide over women scumming their reputation. You're totally right.
Gold star! Sex = love and bullying stereotypes are Super-Cool! Good takeaways from this thread. <writes his findings down in his feminist notebook>
Oh, I forgot for a moment who I was speaking to. I didn't take into account that you could at any moment radically broaden the scope of your argument, and then claim it had been vindicated. Because after all, it's obvious I was saying no man has ever committed suicide, ever, at campaigns to bully or ruin reputations. Never happened anywhere, that's absolutely what I meant.
posted
As for that link...you do realize it doesn't actually fit your theme at all, right? Women are only a fraction of that guy's problems. Did you just pick it without reading because it said nice guys?
(Who don't exist. They're memes. Angry hypersensitive feminists, though, THEY exist. Right. Just so we're clear that this stance against stereotype is yet another hypocritical double standard you employ.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Women are only a fraction of most nice guys' problems. Doesn't mean they have the right to kick 'em when they're down.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't mean that we have to feel bad for not dating them either. Or think that they are "nice" when they are not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only argument is the same as it's always been:
Proposition - Guy tries to ask you out. - You say no. - Guy gets upset. - The meme seems to say that the automatic assumption is he's trying to guilt you into sex.
Problem - This is not true all the time.
My Assertion --- Supposition: Anecdotal Evidence - This is USUALLY not true.
Proposed Solution - Think for yourself. Don't blindly follow a meme.
Conclusion - This meme could be harmful as it can cause women NOT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. - If women retaliate based on a false pretense, it can be harmful to the guy.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that's right. Nobody takes looks into consideration when deciding who to date. Or is it just feminists? That's certainly good to know. <scribbles down more notes for his feminist notebook>
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that. I just said that it is shallow crap. That if a person has looks that don't appeal to you they may as well be a footstool (way to go for the demeaning there, btw) is pretty shallow crap.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the demeaning/objectifying comments really aren't helping you any, Aros.
"If women retaliate based on a false pretense, it can be harmful to the guy."
What retaliation? No one is suggesting that she kick the guy in the face. The whole "meme" is about showing guys some specific ways NOT to act, it's not about how to treat the guys.
Seriously what are you so worried about? What's going to happen to these poor guys?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see we're in the 'make straw men about rival position, and criticize opponents for your version of their beliefs' stage of an Aros conversation. Not when taken by its own standards does the nice guy idea go 'any discontent expressed for refusing to date is actually a guilt ploy for sex'.
Try a little thought exercise, Aros. Imagine a world-just for a moment, just in your imagination-where the people you disagree with don't conform so perfectly with your own take on what you *think* they're actually saying.
Little chance that it would be effective what with your conversational technique of 'hyperbole...or not!...don't generalize about nice guys, but let me get my feminist notebook!...don't be a bully women but fat chicks ade just sick'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, three out of four of your propositions are erroneous:
It's not just a guy trying to ask you out; it's a guy feeling entitled to sex because he's nice.
The woman says no. Correct.
The guy isn't just upset; he engages in performative and passive aggressive behaviors where he blames women's poor taste in partners for his inability to sex. Which he's entitled to 'cause he's nice.
The meme only concerns people who engage in the public (online) displays of wailing and lamentation that women only want to sleep with jerks and never with nice guys; that in a truly just world their perceived adherence to basic standards of decency would get them sex.
And your problem is irrelevant to the discussion. The meme is referring to fairly specific behaviors. If those behaviors aren't present (which one hopes is most of the time) then it doesn't apply.
Your conclusion is poorly worded and quite possibly insulting. Also, the meme could be helpful because it can allow women to recognize the behaviors it identifies and respond appropriately. It generally helps to know if someone's being an entitled wanker.
It also can help the guy avoid giving a false impression by allowing him to recognize when he's being an entitled wanker or at least to avoid problematic language and concepts when being upset about being rejected.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, Nice Guys gotta be entitled to wank. Especially if all the alpha males are taking up all the female capital except for the fat chicks and footstools and whining won't work anymore. And they can't buy hookers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
