Nice guys, patriarchy, and feminism

[robertsomerville]

So a "nice guy" is basically a dishonest pervert that preys upon weak & vulnerable women for sex? I'm not trying to offend anyone (the OP included) but if that's the definition of a "nice guy" I would rather be a jerk.

 

[robertsomerville]

Sounds like that would be great as the topic for a separate thread, RS. Would you like to start it, or shall I?

You can start it I'm too lazy

 

[ChurchTheArtist]

OP, may I please state my humble opinion in a tone that is no way disruptive, demeaning or emotional.

I believe you have made some astute observations but you shot yourself in the foot by linking to the other thread. Please understand that in the other thread you are not donning the coat of "nice guy" but instead "why don't women like me despite the fact I don't have confidence?". Most males on this site think they are the nice guy who finish last but evidence shows they are just the awkward guy who doesn't know how to behave around women. The stance you make in the other thread set you up to have a weak foundation for this thread. Don't get me wrong though, I didn't skip over your OP just because I thought it wasn't important. I read the whole thing but my main point is as follows:

This post may have an astute and populated stance worth inciting a debate but it is ultimately a reactionary stance. There is a way I could address your "Do you guys have any tips on how to get women to approach me" as well as validating and debating the main subject of feminism noted above. However, I implore you to listen to me closely and let this sink in. You are stirring up some pretty rough subjects and I suggest you find some private discussions about it from here on. The reason why I say this is because you make some points to the paradoxical whims of feminism in practice but to what end? You just threw these things out there and ask "what do you think?" I don't think this is going to bring you much in the way of help compared to some of the flack you may get. On top of it not being very healthy for you, it doesn't do anyone else any good either. To be blunt, your post may be smart and brimmed with truth but it doesn't edify anyone.

My basic opinion is do not openly poke the hornet's nest belonging to: feminism, liberalism or racism. The people who will support or validate anything against these topics will not be nearly as vocal or as disruptive as the people who will arise to argue. If you haven't received much anger from this thread already, consider yourself lucky. I'd suggest you quietly take it down and rethink the purpose of putting these opinions out there. This is a great post for a private discussion with people who are closer to you, not very good for hitting the public with. It makes you look bad. Are you asking for help, validation or light discussion? This isn't a good way to go about it. If you are just poking the hornet's nest with the observing of how backwards feminism seems, then you might want to leave that to a private discussion.

I believe there is much we could talk about on this subject. The difference between you and me though is I don't talk about feminism, liberalism or racism on public forums nor do I talk about them for the sake of anything less than edification. Without edification you run the risk of harming yourself and others on an emotional level. As far as the reactionary factor goes, I will politely say that when a grown man posts:
"Do you guys have any tips on how to get women to approach me. Because I don't have guts to ever approach them myself, that part is non-negotiable. But I would love to hear some tips on how to improve my body language, the way I dress, and places I frequent, in order to get women to approach me."

It shows two inherent problems that you seem to not understand.
1) You lack the confidence and self awareness that is key to female attention. Saying that your lack of guts is non-negotiable is more than enough to prove that you will never get the female attention you seek.
2) You lack the perspective to see that you cannot make another person do what you want them to do. Even if you put good bait on your hook and drop it in a populated lake full of fish, you cannot make the fish bite.
Q.E.D.

To come off from that with a directionless jab at feminism is misguided. You aren't wrong in your observations or facts and many of your points were more than noteworthy. But I ask again, to what end? You sound like you are just getting things off your chest at the cost of social tact. Tagging the "what do you think" at the end is as validating as ending a movie with the phrase "The End... or IS it?" I read your post and agreed with much of it but did not see the point of putting it out their publically. And your direct reference to another person, again publically, is far more tactless than just poking a hornet's nest of feminism. I feel that you may have many things to contribute to a public statement but the way you went about it was less than appropriate. I also believe that you have proven to be a very scientific mind with great grasps on the scientific observation but you ultimately have shown in both your OPs that you are trying to fit a square block through a circle hole.

You are smart. But you cannot fix the world by hitting in the face directly as you did here. You cannot fix your female attraction problem by going at it with "no compromise" and pointing fingers at how it's the fault of others. I know many things that I can pass to you to help you with your problems... but you have to empty your cup, how can anyone teach you anything more when your cup is so full?

This is what you sound like. I say that in love and concern with intent to help you but until you can see this for yourself, no one can help you. When you approach someone with the humility of a student ready to learn, you may then find a teacher who can show you what you are doing wrong.

 

[Vanadium50]

If you really mean naive guys, you have to be clear about that.

Yes, I mean naive. But I think there is a connection between nice and naive. The connection is that both are linked to idealism. Nice guy is idealistic in assuming that deep inner qualities (being nice) are above everything else (especially such shallow things as strength or popularity). Naive is idealistic in assuming that everyone should be taken at face value without any ulterior motives. And in fact I am even thinking that those two kinds of idealisms are of very similar kind, if you take into account the phenomenon of projecting. Someone who thinks that being nice is above everything else would "project" their own values on others, and therefore they would never seriously consider that others might have ulterior motives.

Now, the end product of this type of thinking is that nice guy might be accused of the very ulterior motives they don't have. The way it works is as follows: since too many people "have" said ulterior motives, the "rules of the game" are designed to avoid doing the things that those people are doing. For example, people with ulterior motives might ask for money the first time they see you. Thats why there is a social rule not to ask for money until you know someone very well. If there was no scammers, such social rule won't be needed. But since everyone knows there are scammers, thats why there is that rule AND thats also why everyone follows it (except for scammers of course). But then comes the nice guy who, due to his naivette, is completely unaware of such a thing as a scammer. So, due to his lack of awarenness, he might in fact ask for money, and be branded as a scammer. Yet he is the furthest thing from the scammer, he is too good to be a scammer. But he is also too good to learn that scammers exist, hence his social mistake that branded him as one. This actually happened to me. Back in 2009 I was scammed, but I didn't know that there is such a thing as a scammer so, on a different forum, I sent someone private message asking for money in order to help me pay the scammer, and then I was the one who lost the right to send private messages because presumably I was a scammer. But I was not: I was an oblivious nice guy who had no idea that scamming exists. It was that other person who was a scammer, but he didn't lose anything because he didn't even participate in those forums to begin with. So that is a very clear illustration on how nice guys are being confused with the people that are anything "but" nice, which brings me to the other point that you made,

A major difference between "nice guys" and "jerks" is that the latter is much more honest about their intentions.

to which my answer is: yes nice guys ARE honest (in fact due to being naive they are the most honest people in the planet) they are just being confused with the other group of guys that aren't.

On the other hand, as far as a statement that jerks are honest, I disagree with you here too, but for a different reason. Remember I mentioned those two jerks I have spoken to whom I wanted to get away from? Now, I knew both of those guys prior to the conversations in question, and I would have never guessed they would say those things. Well to be honest one of those guys I only knew because he was my trainer at the gym, so I guess I can't be surprised about things since I don't know him that well to begin with. But the other guy I knew a lot better -- he is very good friend of my mom, who goes to cultural events my mom likes, and given how cultured he is, I would have never guessed he would be capable for this kind of talk. Yet when my mom wasn't there to overhear him, THEN he acted like completely different person.

So, no, jerks are NOT honest. Rather, jerks know WHEN to do what. Kind of like that guy knew WHEN its time to act cultured and WHEN its time to talk dirty. He even made a bet to me how he will get my mom to have sex with him, but one of the conditions of the bet was that I am not allowed to say a single word about the conversation we had, I am just to stay there and watch. Why? Because he knows that he won't be talking dirty to her to get her to have sex with him. BUT at the same time, he WOULD be having those dirty thoughts in his head -- after all it was supposed to be an illustration to me on how it works. So once again: jerks are not honest at all. If he was honest, why did he ask me not to say a single word when I watch his interaction with my mom? And by the way, no he didn't get my mom to have sex with him -- on the contrary she was glad when he finally left, just like I was. But still the point remains: he probably did succeed with some other women, since he had that much confident that he would succeed with my mom.

But then the question is: what is the difference between a jerk like him who acts cultured at some point and talks dirty at some other point, and a nice guy like me who has a temper tantrum and then tries to apologize? The difference is in TIMING. He knows when to do what, while in my case its all up to my moods. Well, this implies that I am more honest than him: at least what I do in fact reflects my mood (honesty) while what he does only reflects the "instruction manual" to a "toy" -- a girl whom he views as a toy (and saying things based off of instruction manual as opposed to saying what he truly feels is anything BUT honest).

By the way, speaking of instruction manual, there was entirely different situation that reminded me of that as well. So I was trying to discuss some other girl, and I was speculating that maybe she didn't believe my statement "yes I like you, the reason I didn't wave back is because I have hard time remembering faces" because it sounded like a deflection (and no she didn't use the word deflection, I took that word from something someone completely different said, but apparently I haven't made it clear). Anyway I had a lengthy thread with a title "what is deflection" (see http://www.psychforums.com/asperger-syndrome/topic133655.html ) and someone responded that this lengthy discussion is pointless, the bottom line is that "there is a window of opportunity that you have to catch before it closes and when the window is closed IT would use the word deflection among other things". Now notice how he used the word "it" in reference to the window, and how he didn't even try to understand the meaning of the words other than IT was programmed to say it?! Thats precisely what I am talking about when I talked about instruction manuals. Those jerks view girls as impersonal IT; yet because they follow their instruction manual regarding "those THINGS" so well, the girls would never guess they view them as IT! And then there are nice guys like me who view girls as HUMAN BEINGS, which is precisely why I DON"T follow any of the manuals, I try to sit down and REASON with a girl, as one HUMAN BEING with another HUMAN BEING. Yet, those jerks that think of girls as IT, they get the girls, while the nice guy like myself who views girls as HUMAN BEINGS constantly gets rejected.

Now I understand that the girls might think that if there is that cultured man who all of a sudden revealed his dirty nature after all those years acting as cultured, how would they know the nice guy like myself isn't that way? Well this just brings back the point of nice guys being confused with a completely different category of guys they are NOT part of yet they are being confused with them anyway.

 

[Vanadium50]

ChurchTheArtist, you said I made good points but you don't see how those points would be edifying. Okay, let me tell you why they are edifying. Part of the problem is that people follow "rules of the game" in a thoughtless manner and have no idea why they do that other than "it works". For example there was a girl named K. who admitted she was shallow when she didn't want to date me, yet she didn't even consider dating me because the idea of dating several months after she got to know me is not "what works": what works is to either date right away or be friends right away, no turning back. She didn't even appologize for not changing her mind: changing her mind is not even an option that even crossed her mind, the only thing she apologized for is what she initially done. And this is just one of several examples of people having options A, B and C in their head, and they would never even think about options D let alone P. On the other hand I have to think about everything and actually use my mind as opposed to instruction manual on how I interact with people. Now they keep telling me "don't be stubborn, just follow our advice" well its pretty hard to do. Even if my past experience seem to confirm their advice, each girl is an individual, and approaching an individual from the "learned" perspective is not something I would ever be able to do even if I wanted to. What if the girl, as an individual, gives me a clear indication that she appreciates nice behavior -- yet instead of believing that girl I am asked to believe David DeAngelo who never even met her! Well OF COURSE I would rather believe the girl, and if I have any kind of emotional connection with her (other than the pretend-connection that jerks are making) I won't be able to ignore a sincere smile that she gives me simply because of something learned someone else told me. Then, of course, I keep finding out that David DeAngelo was right, and the girl was just "being polite" -- well not really, but at least the outcome was the same as David DeAngelo predicted. But that won't make me listen to David DeAngelo with a next girl because like I said each girl is an individual, so even if 100 girls proven themselves as nothing more than part of statistics, each new girl I form a connection with is someone I am hoping to be the one person that would save me from all this mess. Call me hopeless romantic, but that is how I am.

Now you might ask what does all that have to do with my discussion of feminism. Well, in order to TRULY understand someone, you have to analyze their thinking. And my attempts to analyze their thinking is where the feminism discussion comes in.

What you might be saying with your analogy with the cup is that I won't hear the explanation of their thinking because I have "decided" I already have my own explanation. Well, thats not the case. My explanation is simply a speculation. So since I am speculating and I know it, I would be more than happy to hear the girl telling me what ACTUALLY goes on in her mind, even if it contradicts my speculation or what not. In physics, for example, I have many different speculations at the same time, and I have no problem with it since I know each one is a speculation. Sometimes I end up throwing away some of my speculations when others are proven to be "much" better, other times I have different speculations develop in parallel, yet other times I draw connection between them, and so forth. And when I am speculating with social issues I have this same mindset, which means that no matter how many speculations I have, I am always open to hear yours. But throwing away extra knowledge as "unnecessary" -- especially when you admit you agree with a lot of it -- is something I would never do. From my perspective, the more information the better. And one thing your cup analogy misses is that humans are very complicated and so the knowledge of human thought isn't limitted by a size of the cup or even a container. What creates the limitation is the mindset of the learner: in particular the learner decides that the reason has to be very simple, either this or that, nothing in between. And then, "of course" once they decided its one thing you can't ever convince them its anything else. But thats not my mindset: like I said, I fully admit that humans are complicated and there are many different levels to their thinking, thats why I am open to learn more no matter how much I know.

Now, I do see your point: namely you mentioned my making a "declaration" how I won't do something: your example was that I said I won't talk to a girl first. And this is analogous to what happened with my physics career where I have decided that "I won't use Grassmann numbers until I develop my own hypothesis of where they come about" which ultimately put me behind and might well be one of the biggest reasons I am not a professor yet (well I finally came up with my own hypothesis on Grassmann numbers, but I only did so 8 years AFTER I was asked to use them). So what you are trying to tell me is that I am making exact same mistake with the girls when I am saying that there is certain thing I "wont do" whether it be "I won't approach them first" or "I won't follow an advice I can't first understand logically" the phrase "I won't ... unless ..." is what makes me sound as not teachable.

Okay as you see I understand your point, but now let me explain mine. Yes, the analogy with Grassmann numbers is very good one (hence your point) but there is one aspect where it doesn't work (hence my disagreement with you). You see in physics I am not trying to emotionally connect to Grassmann numbers. I am told to use them because they work. But with relationships I am trying to emotionally connect to a girl. Well how can I emotionally connect to something I don't understand? Thats why I am trying to understand the girl. Yet I am being told "don't try to understand, just do what you are told and you will get her" well that is reminiscent of treating a girl as a washing machine with instruction manual. But a girl isn't a washing machine, she is a human being. So OF COURSE I want to understand her. And all my speculations about feminism or anything else for that matter are just attempts to do so.

And finally, I do understand your point about "private discussion": you don't want a flame war. But there is another side to the coin. So you have private discussion with your friends. But then, 100 years later, when neither you nor any of your friends are alive any more, all your private thoughts would have died with you. Don't you want your thoughts to actually make a lasting contribution, especially if they are original in nature as opposed to just rehashing some buzzwords that democrats and republicans are saying as mindless parrots? Well I certainly do. Thats why, even if there will be 20 people that will be flaming, the other 10 people that would learn something would make it worth it.

 

[SignOfLazarus]

If a nice person is nice in EXPECTATION OF DESERVING of reward, they are a charlatan and not to be trusted... I feel, actually, really unsafe around such people once I figure it out because it eventually can and often does devolve into an unsafe situation at some point.

That's my two cents on the nice guys thing: don't call yourself a "nice guy", just be a decent person. To everyone, regardless of gender. People are not going to necessarily treat you the same way back. And really, that's just life, for good or bad.

 

[Vanadium50]

If a nice person is nice in EXPECTATION OF DESERVING of reward, they are a charlatan and not to be trusted...

But the point is that, deep down, everyone expects something (unless its your mother, maybe), the only question is whether wanting a reward is a primary motive or only a secondary, and whether they know not to show it. Case in point: a lot of girls that "did" date me are frustrated with me over the fact that I didn't seem to show any appreciation to the nice things they did to me. So, in your logic, are you saying they only did those nice things because they wanted a reward? No, they actually cared about me, but still the act of "not" getting a reward was frustrating "despite" genuine caring at first. So if its okay when a girl does that, why is it not okay when the guy does that too?

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not saying that "girls did that to guys so guys have to do it back to girls"; not at all. Rather, what I am saying is that seeking a reward is universal -- and would continue to apply when both sides are of the same gender. To give you same gender example, my mom was telling me that my MALE professor would have been more likely to help me edit papers if he heard some sort of thank you or, better yet, if I were to take him to a restaurant once one of our papers did get published. Since it was a male professor helping male student, clearly it has nothing to do with supposed superiority of any gender over any other. It is simply a universal quality that applies to all humans (I am sure if I was a girl working with a female professor, my mom would have said the same thing). This being the case, why does it become so bad when the two sides have different genders and its the male who happens to be frustrated that female didn't say thank you?

I feel, actually, really unsafe around such people once I figure it out because it eventually can and often does devolve into an unsafe situation at some point.

I know for a fact that I would never rape, stalk, hit, or steal from anyone. So if by "unsafe situation" you mean any of those four things, then it must be a major miscommunication. But if you explain where this miscommunication originates that would help me immensely, as I don't want to be accused of something I would never do.

 

[ChurchTheArtist]

I'll respond in a bullet point fashion. Please read this entire post Vanadium50. Do not get caught up in the details either.

First addressing:

...you said I made good points but you don't see how those points would be edifying. Okay, let me tell you why they are edifying.

You say you are going to tell my why your post is edifying but in all of it's length, you didn't do so. In fact you immediately go into a story about how a girl was shallow and unapologetic. Either you got off on a rant and forgot you were going to explain how your post is edifying or you don't understand the term. Shouting truth on a proverbial soap box to a crowd of random people may be informative but that doesn't make it edifying. I do enjoy some of our conversations in the past but I believe your biggest problem is you cannot get out of your logical head and understand the spirit of something; the way something feels.

Think of "edify" as you feeding someone's heart, their soul, making them better. You may think the stating of facts is edifying but that's like saying "here, eat a handful of salt." It has no edification, no heart, no warmth, no substance. It doesn't matter how much salt you feed someone or how pure the salt is, they will not be fed with salt alone. Just because you may be logically right doesn't mean that stating it will benefit the public forums. Just like telling a woman you see in the store not to order the cookies because she was already overweight and should eat better. You may be correct logically but you aren't edifying her. Now stop and re-read that paragraph again. Do not pick apart that analogy! If you try to deconstruct the analogy you are not learning it's meaning, you are being counterproductive. What you don't understand is in there, the words are not flawed. If you think you are going to counter my point with another one, I'm done.

Second addressing:

What you might be saying with your analogy with the cup is that I won't hear the explanation of their thinking because I have "decided" I already have my own explanation. Well, thats not the case. My explanation is simply a speculation. So since I am speculating and I know it, I would be more than happy to hear the girl telling me what ACTUALLY goes on in her mind, even if it contradicts my speculation or what not. In physics, for example, ...

No, the analogy with the cup is because you think logically and only logically. You just said "I would be more than happy to hear the girl telling me what ACTUALLY goes on in her mind" and this shows that you are only willing to take things your way. I've tried to tell you before, you cannot expect a girl to lay out her thoughts for analysis. That isn't how women work. The fact that you still think this way means your cup is full of logic; it's full of "understanding" but you don't have room in your cup to realize that there is more to "understanding" than the logical truths you want to find.

You keep trying to make your points based on Physics and logical studies and numbers. I get that you excel in these fields and I truly admire you for that but it's also why you still don't get women. You cannot comprehend female behavior with analogies of physics. Read your own quotes.

...your example was that I said I won't talk to a girl first. And this is analogous to what happened with my physics career ...

Okay as you see I understand your point, but now let me explain mine. Yes, the analogy with Grassmann numbers is very good one (hence your point) but there is one aspect where it doesn't work (hence my disagreement with you). You see in physics I am not trying to emotionally connect to Grassmann numbers.

You keep trying to counter my point with physics, logic, facts. That's why you don't get it because my point is that you need something outside of these things to connect with a woman! The fact that you keep going back to the logical explanations means you are not open to the understanding you need about women! The following quote:

I fully admit that humans are complicated and there are many different levels to their thinking, thats why I am open to learn more no matter how much I know.

These are your words. You claim to be open to learn. If you are then by the dice stop trying to "understand" women with logic and physics analogies! You can't admit humans are complicated and then turn around and try to logically analyze the female behavior patterns to suite your self image. Because yes, your whole post is reactionary; it's ALL about how women don't date you and don't do the things that make sense to you. I am dead on here and until you get that, it's never going to get any better. It doesn't matter what facts you've observed about the female behavior because compared to the level of understanding you need to appreciate a woman, all your facts are like a grain of sand on the beach.

Don't think that I don't see the areas where you do learn and progress. It' just that you aren't getting the big picture so all the little things aren't going to do you much good. Your progress is evident here:

So what you are trying to tell me is that I am making exact same mistake with the girls when I am saying that there is certain thing I "wont do" whether it be "I won't approach them first" or "I won't follow an advice I can't first understand logically" the phrase "I won't ... unless ..." is what makes me sound as not teachable.

Yes, you are getting some of it but you are trying to understand a tree by picking apart the leaves. You are getting some of it, I see that, but you are lacking the "step back and look at the big picture" part. I've told you before, you are missing the forest because of all the trees.

 

[ChurchTheArtist]

Conclusive point (the most important):

But with relationships I am trying to emotionally connect to a girl. Well how can I emotionally connect to something I don't understand? Thats why I am trying to understand the girl.

Yet I am being told "don't try to understand, just do what you are told and you will get her" well that is reminiscent of treating a girl as a washing machine with instruction manual.

But a girl isn't a washing machine, she is a human being. So OF COURSE I want to understand her. And all my speculations about feminism or anything else for that matter are just attempts to do so.

Let me give you a very simple tip. Do not, for the love of God, pick this tip apart because it took me years of heartache to develop this wisdom. If you cannot hear me in this, I really am done trying to help you. Nothing else need be said until you take this in as freakin' GOSPEL!

Your job is not to understand a woman. That's not what having a partner is all about. Your job is to love her, cherish her and experience her. Really hear me on this my friend! You need to experience the woman. I'm not talking about sex. I'm talking about having your soul touched by something bigger than what your brain can analyze. You don't get women, you don't get what they represent. Their very existence is meant to be outside of your microscope. If you spend all your time trying to understand how they work down to a science you are never ever going to connect with one.

You can connect with a woman without fully understanding how she's programmed. You clearly don't understand how this connection works if you think you need to understand a woman to have it.

Do you analyze how and why you like dessert? You like icecream? Do you sit and map out your brain chemistry and endorphin levels to cross reference the different flavors of icecream? Do you conduct a study to better understand why your brain reacts a certain way when you eat icecream before you order at the register? Have you mapped out the range of logical effects each icecream flavor and added topping has on your life so that you may best choose the most optimal flavor next time you order? NO! You just order something you know you like and enjoy the experience of the bowl. You don't over analyze the icecream, you enjoy it.

Do you just have to know every historical and geographical detail about the Grand Canyon before you can be struck in awe at it's beauty?!

Do you know every nut and bolt holding your car together? Do you know every mechanical, physical and thermodynamic principle behind the very car you drive to work? Or do you just... drive the car and take care of it? Did you buy the Haynes manual and read it before you bought your car? When was the last time you even picked up the owner's manual in the glove box?

Can you quantify companionship? Can you create a numeric range of love? Do you try to map out your ideal woman like she were some Build-a-Bear in the mall? Do you really think you are going to find the answers to making women like you by barking their flaws on the internet?!

You want to be open to teaching? Here's an assignment for you: Tell me why a child loves a dog.
And if you try to do so with politics, physics, numbers, theories, facts, or anything else you may find in the books on your shelf, I will seriously declare you unteachable. Tell me with your heart why a child loves a dog!

 

[SignOfLazarus]

But the point is that, deep down, everyone expects something (unless its your mother, maybe), the only question is whether wanting a reward is a primary motive or only a secondary, and whether they know not to show it. Case in point: a lot of girls that "did" date me are frustrated with me over the fact that I didn't seem to show any appreciation to the nice things they did to me. So, in your logic, are you saying they only did those nice things because they wanted a reward? No, they actually cared about me, but still the act of "not" getting a reward was frustrating "despite" genuine caring at first. So if its okay when a girl does that, why is it not okay when the guy does that too?

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not saying that "girls did that to guys so guys have to do it back to girls"; not at all. Rather, what I am saying is that seeking a reward is universal -- and would continue to apply when both sides are of the same gender. To give you same gender example, my mom was telling me that my MALE professor would have been more likely to help me edit papers if he heard some sort of thank you or, better yet, if I were to take him to a restaurant once one of our papers did get published. Since it was a male professor helping male student, clearly it has nothing to do with supposed superiority of any gender over any other. It is simply a universal quality that applies to all humans (I am sure if I was a girl working with a female professor, my mom would have said the same thing). This being the case, why does it become so bad when the two sides have different genders and its the male who happens to be frustrated that female didn't say thank you?



I know for a fact that I would never rape, stalk, hit, or steal from anyone. So if by "unsafe situation" you mean any of those four things, then it must be a major miscommunication. But if you explain where this miscommunication originates that would help me immensely, as I don't want to be accused of something I would never do.

You seem to be "putting words in my mouth". there are all kinds of ways to make someone feel unsafe. Congrats.

 

[Vanadium50]

You want to be open to teaching? Here's an assignment for you: Tell me why a child loves a dog.
And if you try to do so with politics, physics, numbers, theories, facts, or anything else you may find in the books on your shelf, I will seriously declare you unteachable. Tell me with your heart why a child loves a dog!

It is funny you came up with this particular example. I had a cat in Russia and she was really soft I liked snuggling with her. And whenever I had girlfriends and was trying to express my affection towards them I was comparing them to the cat that I had in Russia as well as other cats I ran into (such as the cats of the landlord I rent from). I also came up with my own language designed in order to express how soft cats are AND how much I loved my girlfriend. So the word "softy" had double meaning: it referred to a cat and it also referred to my girlfriend (and I never used the word "sweety", instead I used "softy"). The word "melt" had triple meaning: cat melts when she purrs, the girl melts when she says "awww" and finally the girl also melts when I give her a hug. Also when I was skyping with my girlfriend I liked to snuggle with cats right in front of the camera, and combine this with telling the girl how much I love her, and find ways in which the girlfriend could participate over skype in whatever I did with the cats. For example, there was one time when the cat kept trying to get out of the room to the point that she stood on her two feet trying to open the door. The girlfriend kept telling me to let her out, and I was telling her that no, I won't let her out, because keeping her inside the room feels the same way as keeping my girlfriend on skype when she has to go, and both feels good. And finally it also felt good that my girlfriend keep asking me to let the cat out and I was telling her that I won't. Also there was a time when the girlfriend suggested that if I feed cats tuna they would really be soft towards me. So I did that, and it worked. And from that point onward I was telling her that when I visit her I would feed her tuna in order to "soften her up"; she insisted that she won't eat tuna because it is imported from China and she only eat local things, but I was telling her that if I bring the tuna, give her a hug, and spoon feed her then she would melt and once she melts she won't be able to resist eating it, just like the cat when i pet her would melt and stop going wherever she is going (but no I didn't try to feed her tuna when I visitted; but I certainly liked talking to her how I would). We also had what we call a "softy game" when she was trying to convince me that I am bigger softy and I was trying to convince her that she is. So there was one time that she said that if she is a cat then I am a tiger, implying that tiger is bigger than a cat. Then I said that I agree I am a tiger but the cat is bigger softy than tiger: even though tiger is bigger in size, the cat contains a lot more softness than the tiger does. She disagreed and said that a tiger is just a big ball of softness and I said that cat is even more soft. She said that tiger is just a big cat and claimed that if a cat was to suddenly get big then the cat would try to eat human just like tiger would. And I said no, the cat would never eat a human, because a cat is like the most caring animal in the world. And then she said that it would be interesting to place me in a cell with a cat and then suddenly cat would get big and I would be screaming "please help me, the cat is getting un-soft". But then few months later she saw on the news how the cat saved little kid from a dog and I was like "see I was right" and she said "no it just God worked through the cat" and I was like "no, its the cat that was really caring herself, I really wish I could have that particular cat so that I can see how soft she is". There was also another conversation where I told her that she is as soft as a cat and she told me that in this case I am softer than a cat and I said "oh no, no human can ever be softer than a cat": thus I simultaneously paid tribute to cats AND told her that she is softer than me, all at once.

Anyway, back to the point you were trying to make: as you see I didn't analyze any of it, I just experienced it. And this is true not just with relationship with her, but ANY TIME relationship works. The only time when I analyze things is when things don't work. So basically, I am EXPERIENCING how everything is great: no analysis, just experience. But then BOOOMMMM its no longer great. But why? I thought it was great? So the fact that it fell apart so suddenly makes no sense in terms of feelings. And when things make no sense in terms of feelings, then logic comes in. And if you re-read my earlier posts you will find that every single example I applied logic to had to do with things totally contradicting my intuition in terms of feelings. Take the title of the post: nice guys finish last. Makes absolutely no sense in terms of feelings. So the only other option is to use logic. Or even if you say that its not that, but rather girls just want confidence in males. This also makes no sense. What does snuggling has to do with confidence? Isn't the whole point of love when two people trust each other so much that they can allow themselves to be vulnerable in front of each other because they know they are there for each other? If so, then why would this EVER have to do with confidence at all? Love is not a sports championship! Yet women say they want confidence. Yes I have feelings -- as evident from the fact that they TOTALLY CONTRADICT this notion of confidence. And BECAUSE my feelings totally contradict what I am told, I feel "forced" to use logic instead, in order to make at least SOME sense of it. And with other examples I gave its the same story. I FELT that the girl treated me like a nerd, yet I was TOLD that she was mad at me for my temper tantrums. I FELT like its a right thing to forgive me if I appologize, yet I was TOLD otherwise. And on and on and on. Every single thing I am complaining about has to do with the fact that I do have feelings and those feelings are being contradicted by what I see, and then I have to use logic to make sense of it. If only women ACTUALLY acted according to my feelings, then no I would never be using logic, just like I weren't using it in the middle of relationships that went well.

 

[Vanadium50]

You seem to be "putting words in my mouth". there are all kinds of ways to make someone feel unsafe. Congrats.

I didn't put those word inside your mouth, I said it how it SOUNDS LIKE to be, but I could be totally wrong since I don't understand the concept of "unsafe" to begin with. So since you said that "unsafe" doesn't entail the four things I listed (rape, stalking, hitting, stealing) then what DOES "unsafe" entail? What are the examples of "unsafe" that don't fit any of those four categories?

 

[Cosmophylla]

I mean, if feminists don't believe in gender roles, why do they select a dominant male for themselves? Makes no sense! ... on the other hand, feminists, by rejecting this concept, are less likely to forgive man's faux passes, hence feminists are the ones that end up hurting nice guys the most.

...

Now, if you think of feminism as getting rid of gender roles as opposed to their reversal, then feminists are less inclined to do either, and thats why feminist women won't forgive aspie men.

On the other hand, if you view feminism as, in fact, a reversal of gender roles, then you can argue that in order for women to feel "more powerful" they have to claim that whatever things women are better at are more important than the things men are better at. Since women are better at social skills, this means that part of feminist agenda is to make social skills more important than physical strength. And since feminists want to be gender-blind...

...Hence the logic is: most men are inferior, except for those few supermen who "made up" for their inferiority by being the supermen that they are -- hence feminists choose supermen to date.

And here is one more theory: maybe feminists do support gender roles, but they view them as confined to the family -- and in order to be part of the family (as in, approved by a woman as someone to date) you have to pass all those qualifications. On the other hand, patriarchy offers all men unconditional power -- qualified or not.

You've made a lot of claims about a so-called feminist agenda here...

I class myself as a feminist, and have since the 1990s when I was a student. However, to me feminism is about striving for equal respect. For balance. It is striving to be spoken to in a respectful way, and ending the exploitation of females. Men and women are different and we can complement each other, but not if the relationship is one-sided, unbalanced.

In my mind, feminism is about meeting in the middle, not about female superiority. I think this is the case for most feminists. Unfortunately some men misunderstand and are threatened by the very label "feminist", confusing it with "misandry".

Also, I prefer the nice guys. Humble and modest is far better than brash and cocky. I'd rather talk to someone who finds it hard to get the words out than a "smooth operator".

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

But the thing is that I was telling to both of them that I would never do that again, yet they responded to me exactly what you just did: that they think I might despite my intending not to. In other words, they decided that I am not in control of my actions since they decided I will do it despite my fully intending not to. Acting like I am not in control or that I am not self aware is reminiscent of my mom thinking I won't know when the room I rent is not comfortable and so forth. And that is the same as calling me inferior. The point is that they did NOT tell me "I don't believe you, I think you INTEND to be mean and you are lying that you aren't". Instead they said "I know you don't want to be mean, but you will be anyway, because you are predestined to be mean". That's why they didn't call me a jerk but instead they called me a disabled, a "victim" of the predestination THEY attribute to me, I am like "no I am not predestined to be mean, I have a CHOICE and I will CHOOOSE not to be mean any more" but they are like "oh yes you ARE predestined to be mean" and that really hurt me.

On the other hand, the actual jerks would never say they won't do that again, and they never back up on any mean thing they said. They stick to everything they said and that's why they get respected. So in case of those two women I said something and then was frantically apologizing but they didn't hear it. On the other hand those two women were sticking to what they said so in a long run they were a lot meaner to me than I was to them since it took only five minutes for me to say those mean things initially and it took days for me to try and apologize and for them to turn down my every attempt to do so.

Ok, firstly, these girls have absolutely no way of knowing that you are sincere in your apology and assurance that it will never happen again. They are not mind readers, and behaving towards them in such a way could easily have broken any trust that has been established between you.

Secondly, even if you were completely sincere in telling them that it would not happen again, that doesn't mean that you can be sure it won't (and they certainly can't be sure it won't). The fact that you have done this twice with to different people shows that this is a repeating pattern for you, and that for all you may sincerely intend to never let it happen again you cannot be sure that it won't happen again. Sure it might not (there is not any predestination involved) but it might. This is in no way implying a disability on your part, it is simply a psychological fact, human nature.

Lastly, "actual jerks" apologise and say they won't do things again just as much as "nice" people. To give an extreme example, this pattern of offence/aggression -> apology/sincere assurance that it will not happen again -> repeated offence/aggression the next time they lose their temper, is recognised in some abusive relationships.

By the way, it is entirely possible that Asperger in and of itself is not a social disability, rather Asperger make you slightly clumsy in how you walk and makes it slightly difficult to control your tone of voice; it is other people that "punish" you for those physical disabilities by ostracizing you socially

....No, Aspergers is a social disability, clumsiness is just a part of it (not even universal amongst aspies). It also has many other facets.

You seem to be really fixated on people 'punishing' you for being a nerd. Newsflash: some women love nerds. Universities are full of these sort of women. Highly educated intelligent men who are passionate about their subjects are interesting. If your girlfriends are finding you boring you need to date someone who shares your interests. And don't monologue, one sided conversations are generally boring however interesting the topic.

 

[Vanadium50]

You've made a lot of claims about a so-called feminist agenda here...

I class myself as a feminist, and have since the 1990s when I was a student. However, to me feminism is about striving for equal respect. For balance. It is striving to be spoken to in a respectful way, and ending the exploitation of females. Men and women are different and we can complement each other, but not if the relationship is one-sided, unbalanced.

In my mind, feminism is about meeting in the middle, not about female superiority. I think this is the case for most feminists. Unfortunately some men misunderstand and are threatened by the very label "feminist", confusing it with "misandry".

Okay, your version of the word "feminism" sounds much better than other versions and I totally agree with the concept of meeting in the middle and that neither gender should be exploited, I think men and women should have equal pay and equal chance to be hired. I also agree that both genders should have equal access to education (in fact I strongly prefer to date women either in graduate school or with graduate degrees although unfortunately I wasn't succeeding, except for one time, because most women reject me so I had to take whoever few that said yes), and yes I think that in a relationship both genders should play the same role, both should work and earn money, both contribute to raising kids, etc. So if thats how you define feminism then I agree with this version of it.

But this brings me to my original question: why do feminists dislike nice guys? Intuitively, it seems like nice guys are a lot more likely to agree with this version of feminism than jerks are. If anything, jerks are the ones that are trying to "exploit women". Nice guys, on the other hand, have the best intentions they just make faux passes due to being clumsy.

Also, I prefer the nice guys. Humble and modest is far better than brash and cocky. I'd rather talk to someone who finds it hard to get the words out than a "smooth operator".

Very good! Now the next question is: how come there are so many women that SAY that, yet most of them don't want to date me? Is it because my INTENTIONS get miscommunicated due to my "clumsiness". So, as much as they want "clumsy nice guy rather than smooth operator" they would never classify me as "clumsy nice guy" despite the fact that I am the very definition of it, since my clumsy nature prevents my nice intentions from being communicated?

 

[Vanadium50]

Ok, firstly, these girls have absolutely no way of knowing that you are sincere in your apology and assurance that it will never happen again. They are not mind readers, and behaving towards them in such a way could easily have broken any trust that has been established between you.

If you re-read what I wrote, what I was trying to focus in case of those two girls was the DYNAMICS of HOW they rejected me rather than the fact of rejection. I can think of examples of other girls who also didn't believe I was sincere, but in those cases this was clear, they acted outright angry. But not with those two girls. Those two girls acted like goofballs and made me feel like a nerd left out in the corner. So what does being a goofball has to do with being mad or not trusting my intentions? Makes no sense at all. Yet that is exactly what they did.

I guess what you might say is that "dynamics is different but outcome is the same": whether the girl acts angry or becomes a goofball, the fact is that, in all those cases, first I threw a temper tantrum, then the girl changed her behavior in SOME way (INSERT THE BLANK HERE) and then relationship was brought to the end. And the fact that this pattern remains the same across different istuations is probably why people keep telling me not to overanalyze whenever I talk about the "inserting the blank" part. But still I can't help but notice the fact that "insertion of the blank" FEELS very different in case of different girls and I wish to understand why. And, in particular, the situation when girls become goofballs in the "insert the blank" space is when I am made to feel like a nice guy who finishes last (and you might say that what I originally did wasn't nice, but my intentions changed and, regardless of what I did at first, I certainly did FEEL like a nice guy at the time when the girl acted like a goofball).

Secondly, even if you were completely sincere in telling them that it would not happen again, that doesn't mean that you can be sure it won't (and they certainly can't be sure it won't). The fact that you have done this twice with to different people shows that this is a repeating pattern for you, and that for all you may sincerely intend to never let it happen again you cannot be sure that it won't happen again. Sure it might not (there is not any predestination involved) but it might. This is in no way implying a disability on your part, it is simply a psychological fact, human nature.

The way I know that it won't is that I know what my pattern is: in particular, the pattern is to "test the limit" when I don't YET know what the limit is, and then once I found out where is the limit I no longer test it (first, I don't want to lose her, and secondly, testing it is no longer "interesting" since I already know the outcome of the test). Case in point: I once dated Christian fundamentalist girl who made it clear from the outset that cuss words are off limit, so I never "tested" her in this area (there was a time when I accidentally forwarded on facebook "I [deleted] love science" page, but that was a true accident, not a test at all). On the other hand, she was also patriotic, and it bothered her when I said negative things about America, but not every time only some of the time; so that made me want to say those things even more since I was curious to see exactly where the limit is. And that is actually one of the main reasons why I keep striking out: since different girls has different limits, every time I reach a limit I am surprised but then there is no going back.

So to answer your point about pattern: oh yes, when I will have a DIFFERENT girl I sure WILL repeat those mistakes I made with previous girls. BUT if instead of having different girl I were to go back to the girls I already had, then no I won't repeat those mistakes, since with those girls I already know their standard. And thats why I keep asking for second chances and actually MEAN IT when I say that I won't do that again.

 

[Vanadium50]

It had length limit, so I had to break reply on two pieces. Here is a continuation of my reply:

Lastly, "actual jerks" apologise and say they won't do things again just as much as "nice" people. To give an extreme example, this pattern of offence/aggression -> apology/sincere assurance that it will not happen again -> repeated offence/aggression the next time they lose their temper, is recognised in some abusive relationships.

Actually I had two year relationship where I did exactly that. What happened in this case is that I dated a girl with PCOS and, due to this, she lost a lot of blood during her cycles, to the point that she couldn't walk and I was taking care of her. Now this particular time was the BEST in our relationship: the fact that she trusted me, and I was the only one that helped her (while her family was far away and her friends more or less forgotten about her) drew us very close. But then, when she was no longer as sick, I decided to catch up on the physics that I put aside in order to help her, and thats where the problems started.

The first physics related problem was dance class. I guess looking back I can see that "dance class problem" was me rather than her. In particular, when I am doing physics calculation, time seems to go very fast, but then when my calculation gets interrupted because I have to go to a dance class then time goes really slow at a dance class, and thats why I sincerely felt like I could have finished the calculation in a day if not for that dance class that makes it drag on for months. Looking back I can see it couldn't have possibly been true since the dance class was only few hours a WEEK and I had the rest of the time to do my calculations. But unfortunately I didn't realize it at the time. Another part of the problem is that she hasn't communicated to me WHY she wanted to go to dance class. From what she told me later, due to the fact that she couldn't walk for few months and then FINALLY she COULD walk, she decided to celebrate it by doing something fun that she couldn't do during those months: namely, dance class. But she didn't tell me that until few months afterwards, so I had no way of knowing it! To me it was just a chore that I had to do "just because". If only she were to simply tell me this earlier I would have treated the dance class completely differently.

Also in terms of fun things to do our interests were different. I like to go explore places, while she likes to watch TV for several hours on end. Once again, part of it is my perception problem. At the very end of the relationship I finally took her to one of the restaurants I enjoy going by myself and she actually liked it, and she said it would have made a relationship better if I was taking her to such places all this time we were dating! But I stupidly assumed otherwise up until that one time, so on my end I felt like she was "keeping me from doing what I really like to do" and on her end she felt like I was not contributing anything to the relationship. But then when I finally took her to that restaurant and saw the light, it was too late to do anything about it since, by then, I have accepted postdoc in India. And she similarly told me towards the end of a relationship that I didn't have to sit all those hours watching TV with her, I could have expressed initiative to do something else. Well that is another big newsflash for me. I was thinking all those months that I was "forced to endure" the TV and couldn't do anything about it.

Finally there was the whole conflict between her and my parents. It started when my parents wanted to attend some cultural event in Crimea and my girlfriend wanted to go to North Carolina with me and she made reservations that weren't refundable. The way I dealt with that was that I told my parents that I want to go to Crimea but I have to go to North Carolina against my wishes so that my girlfriend won't get mad, and I told my girlfriend that I want to go to North Carolina but I have to go to Crimea so that my parents won't get mad. I was hoping that by blame shifting I won't hurt either side no matter what my decision is. But it worked just the opposite to what I expected: both sides only got even more angry over the fact that I was "just" trying to please the other side. After the relationship was over my girlfriend told me she would have let me go to Crimea if I were to say thats what I wanted rather than my parents, and my parents told me that they would have let me go to North Carolina if it was what I wanted rather than my girlfriend. But you see I didn't know that! But in any case, the way I handled it lead to a conflict between my girlfriend and my parents that lasted throughout the second year of our relationship (that trip conflict was right in the middle of our two year relationship, so first year was relatively easy but it was the second year that was hard -- and what marked the beginning of second year was first the dance class and then the trip conflict a couple of months later).

Anyway, going back to what you were saying: so you were talking about long term relationships where the pattern of temper tantrum --> appology --> temper tantrum keeps happening. Now, this particular relationship is where I did that, and yes I know WHY I did that. In particular, remember how I said that at the time when she was sick and I was taking care of her it drew us really close? Well, because of that, I didn't want to "betray" her, since I saw for myself how fragile and vulnerable she is. So, even though I no longer liked her during the second year of a relationship (for the above described reasons) I didn't want to break up with her in order not to hurt her. And yes it was about her this time, not me. On my end I was regretting the fact that I met her on the first place since that is what put me in this dillemma, and I was also promising myself that if, by some chance, I was "freed" from this relationship, I would never seek any other relationship again: well clearly I was wrong because here I am wanting another relationship, but that is what I felt at the time since that was how far I felt pushed up the wall. And now let me REALLY go back to the point you were making: because I felt torn that way, I kept hoping that I could do something that would make her break up with me herself, which would spare me from being the one that initiates a breakup, and that way I won't have to feel guilt about hurting or betraying someone so vulnerable. Now, as far as the tantrums go, part of it is simply that I can't control myself (due to the fact that my girlfriend was constantly mad at me over all sorts of things), but the other part was that I didn't try to control myself as much as I would have in other situations since I knew that her breaking up with me was the only way out of all this. That is the reason for recurrent tantrums. And, as far as apology, its purpose was to alleviate my guilt since I saw that, despite the fact that I wasn't breaking up with her, I was hurting her in a different way, so I felt bad about it which caused me to keep appologizing. Now like I said our relationship lasted for two years, and I was doing that throughout the entire second year of a relationship, so I really do feel bad that I put her through all this, I was trying to spare her feelings by not breaking up outright, but I ended up hurting her a lot more. And yes the fact that I feel bad about hurting her is sincere: ever since I dated her I was taking flowers off the road because flowers being hurt by a car reminded me of her being hurt.

Anyway, be it as it may, as you see this toxic pattern is specific to that relationship; with all the other relationships I was simply testing limits that was temporary until the "test" was over. It was this ONE relationship where it wasn't a test but rather I felt trapped -- and this particular scenario could have been avoided if only I were to think of certain things I mentioned here back when I should have thought of them. The point though is that what is behind the apology in her case is totally different from what is behind apology with other girls. In her case I wanted her to break up, and the purpose of apology was to make her hurt less. With other girls I didn't want them to break up and the purpose of apology was to keep them, whereas them being hurt was the last on my mind since I felt I was the victim -- in sharp contrast with what happened with this girl where I felt like she was.

You seem to be really fixated on people 'punishing' you for being a nerd. Newsflash: some women love nerds. Universities are full of these sort of women. Highly educated intelligent men who are passionate about their subjects are interesting. If your girlfriends are finding you boring you need to date someone who shares your interests.

The only question is why don't I have any luck finding such girls. The fact is that I always put interest in math and physics, along with graduate student status, on a top of my priority list in terms of whom I would date. But I never got a chance to date any of female physicists because I was forced to settle on people I have nothing in common with.

And don't monologue, one sided conversations are generally boring however interesting the topic.

Which is precisely why I felt mislead when it was so OBVIOUS that the girl was bored by my monologue and then few weeks later she said that actually it was due to temper tantrums I threw a couple of weeks BEFORE said monologue!

 

[ChurchTheArtist]

Everyone STOP! This thread, Vanadium50, this topic... it's all a lost cause!

Vanadium, you are done. You don't get it. You are NOT A NICE GUY! You claim in your OP that you are a "nice guy" but you attacked Cali Cat by name. You complained that she was trying to sound superior to you but you turn around and unload your personal theories in BULK and attack her personally! You are a hypocrite.

You think that being alone is because you're a "nice guy" and women all have the problem? No, it's because you are INSUFFERABLE! I gave you a SIMPLE question and you blew it! You spent two paragraphs rambling about your personal life and you failed to answer the question. Your intelligence is wasted because you don't know how to use it correctly.

You are deliberately making people upset by being insufferable. STOP IT. I am tired of hearing you attempt to break people down to make them look stupid. You aren't even good at it because you completely miss ALL THE POINTS. You have NO perspective!

NO one should waste anymore time entertaining this thread. You will never learn! You have no understanding of the human heart and you are not a "nice guy." Everything you needed to improve has already been said. You just don't understand it. Nothing more can be said to guide you. Until you get your head out of your rear you will never be anything more than insufferable.

I will not stand by and let you disrupt and attack these people with your ill guided, short sighted use of your intellect. You are flailing about making a lot of noise but nothing you say benefits anyone! You are disruptive at the expense of others and I will not stand by and let you continue!

 

[Warmheart]

Church, mind your conduct here please. You cannot demand someone consider your viewpoints.
This forum is for everyone. Please also stop insulting Vanadium, and trying to control his focus, as well as trying to control the thread, and trying to control other members participation.
Bolding and enlarging your text, using different colors, insulting a member, and demanding someone address something you said-- then telling others to leave the topic/thread is not acceptable.

 

[Cali Cat]

ChurchTheArtist You did your best to help him. It was a valiant effort.