Vanadium50
Well-Known Member
From the pure logical point of view, I was tempted to blame the phenomenon that nice guys finish last on patriarchy. After all, the concept that male partner should be dominant is rooted in patriarchy, and the fact that nice guys finish last is a consequence of the fact that women want to stick to this patriarchal concept: in fact, sticking to this concept is even more important to women than actually being treated nicely!
However, when I actually talk TO woman about this, what i see seems to be just the opposite: its the feminist women that would slam "nice guys" the most! To me this seems like a contradiction. I mean, if feminists don't believe in gender roles, why do they select a dominant male for themselves? Makes no sense! However, if I think about it a bit further, the reason an aspie male is not being dominant is rooted in the fact that he is constantly being "beaten up" for having poor social skills. Now, from the traditional gender perspective, women are better at social skills than men are. Therefore, from patriarchal perspective, its man's duty to carry a heavy bag for a woman (to help her out where men are stronger) and its woman's duty to forgive man's social faux passes (to help him out where women are stronger); 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, in a true patriarchal society they won't ever phrase it that way: instead of saying that women are forgiving man's faux passes to help them out, they will say that men can do what they want because they are the leaders so they get all the say in everything. But in reality those are just two sides of the same coin. A perfect illustration of this is to reverse the genders. When feminists say "women power" what they really mean is "helping out the female victims of male oppression". So, in the same way, "male power" can be thought of as "helping out male victims of female oppression".
Now I fully realize that the latter statement is silly; but the reason it is silly is time sequence. Since female oppression of men is 21-st century phenomenon, how can middle age patriarchy possibly be a reaction to it? But, as a physicist, I think imagining "time reversals" would give you a lot of insight into a lot of things. When you go to the store, does it really make it that much of a difference whether you first take the item and then pay, or first pay and then they give you an item? Well, with patriarchy-feminism thing its similar: a feminism is a payment for patriarchy just as much as patriarchy is a payment for feminism. If feminism came first, then patriarchy would come after words in order to "help out" all those men that were psychologically damaged by women. But since patriarchy came first, thats why women are like "wait a second, you had patriarchy for no reason? Well you can't just have patriarchy for free, here, let me give you the reason", and then you have a feminism coming along. And yes, "women power" is not just an expression: it shows itself in a very literal way when the woman shows her "power" in the way she tears apart the nice guy (a perfect illustration of this is the following thread: https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/getting-women-to-approach-me.16590/ as you see in that thread, Calicat kept asserting her superiority over me by first looking down on me for "not noticing" how I phrase things (hence she is stronger than me since she notices more than me) and then pointing out that she could collect a lot more likes than me, and so forth) But still, despite the fact that on my end of the line it feels like Calicat "overpowered" me, on her end of the line I am sure it feels just the opposite: she feels victimized by patriarchy and feels like she has to defend herself. And thats where my point becomes even more obvious. We don't even have a time sequence. Here we are writing back and forth at the same time, yet men feel victimized by feminism and women feel victimized by patriarchy at the exact same time!
In any case, going back to the previous paragraph, the point I was trying to make is that, since perceived superiority (hence dominance) and perceived victimhood (hence the need for compensation) are two sides of the same coin when it comes to EITHER gender, the analogy between man carrying bag to help out a woman and the woman forgiving mens faux passes to help him out in his social skills holds. 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, they want to make this the case in all cases: thus, even if there are two male job applicants, it would still serve feminist agenda if social skills on the interview had higher value! BUT HERE IS A TWIST: this state of things causes a man with better social skills (female strength) to be more confident (male strength) and BECAUSE OF that twist feminist women end up going with more confident guys DESPITE the fact that it flies in the face of feminist agenda.
And yet another possibility is that feminists are aware that they have just given credit to the male strength but their thinking goes like this "women strength is of course more important, but since none of the guys have those female bonuses, lets look at lesser important things -- such as male bonuses -- to see whether any of them can at least somewhat make up for lack of female ones". 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. And the reason feminists are opposed to patriarchy is logically parallel to the reason that any woman (feminist or not) would be opposed to random stranger saying "hey from now on you are my wife". So feminists are actually MORE aware that dominance is a gender role IN A FAMILY, and thats precisely why they are opposed to gender role in a society at large since that would make them feel like that dominant guy on a TV is trying to be her husband (why? Because being dominant is associated with a husband, hence her selection of a mate).
Anyway, these are just my two cents. But what do others think of it? NOTE: I was going to say "what do you guys" think of it, but I couldn't, since Calicat jumped into that expression in the other post. And now that I tried to avoid the phrase "you guys" I found it quite difficult (I mean when I replaced "you guys" with "others" it sounded awkward). But apparently for Calicat its easy to find ways to phrase it that avoid "you guys" AND don't sound awkward. Thus, she can assert her superiority over me this way.
However, when I actually talk TO woman about this, what i see seems to be just the opposite: its the feminist women that would slam "nice guys" the most! To me this seems like a contradiction. I mean, if feminists don't believe in gender roles, why do they select a dominant male for themselves? Makes no sense! However, if I think about it a bit further, the reason an aspie male is not being dominant is rooted in the fact that he is constantly being "beaten up" for having poor social skills. Now, from the traditional gender perspective, women are better at social skills than men are. Therefore, from patriarchal perspective, its man's duty to carry a heavy bag for a woman (to help her out where men are stronger) and its woman's duty to forgive man's social faux passes (to help him out where women are stronger); 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, in a true patriarchal society they won't ever phrase it that way: instead of saying that women are forgiving man's faux passes to help them out, they will say that men can do what they want because they are the leaders so they get all the say in everything. But in reality those are just two sides of the same coin. A perfect illustration of this is to reverse the genders. When feminists say "women power" what they really mean is "helping out the female victims of male oppression". So, in the same way, "male power" can be thought of as "helping out male victims of female oppression".
Now I fully realize that the latter statement is silly; but the reason it is silly is time sequence. Since female oppression of men is 21-st century phenomenon, how can middle age patriarchy possibly be a reaction to it? But, as a physicist, I think imagining "time reversals" would give you a lot of insight into a lot of things. When you go to the store, does it really make it that much of a difference whether you first take the item and then pay, or first pay and then they give you an item? Well, with patriarchy-feminism thing its similar: a feminism is a payment for patriarchy just as much as patriarchy is a payment for feminism. If feminism came first, then patriarchy would come after words in order to "help out" all those men that were psychologically damaged by women. But since patriarchy came first, thats why women are like "wait a second, you had patriarchy for no reason? Well you can't just have patriarchy for free, here, let me give you the reason", and then you have a feminism coming along. And yes, "women power" is not just an expression: it shows itself in a very literal way when the woman shows her "power" in the way she tears apart the nice guy (a perfect illustration of this is the following thread: https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/getting-women-to-approach-me.16590/ as you see in that thread, Calicat kept asserting her superiority over me by first looking down on me for "not noticing" how I phrase things (hence she is stronger than me since she notices more than me) and then pointing out that she could collect a lot more likes than me, and so forth) But still, despite the fact that on my end of the line it feels like Calicat "overpowered" me, on her end of the line I am sure it feels just the opposite: she feels victimized by patriarchy and feels like she has to defend herself. And thats where my point becomes even more obvious. We don't even have a time sequence. Here we are writing back and forth at the same time, yet men feel victimized by feminism and women feel victimized by patriarchy at the exact same time!
In any case, going back to the previous paragraph, the point I was trying to make is that, since perceived superiority (hence dominance) and perceived victimhood (hence the need for compensation) are two sides of the same coin when it comes to EITHER gender, the analogy between man carrying bag to help out a woman and the woman forgiving mens faux passes to help him out in his social skills holds. 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, they want to make this the case in all cases: thus, even if there are two male job applicants, it would still serve feminist agenda if social skills on the interview had higher value! BUT HERE IS A TWIST: this state of things causes a man with better social skills (female strength) to be more confident (male strength) and BECAUSE OF that twist feminist women end up going with more confident guys DESPITE the fact that it flies in the face of feminist agenda.
And yet another possibility is that feminists are aware that they have just given credit to the male strength but their thinking goes like this "women strength is of course more important, but since none of the guys have those female bonuses, lets look at lesser important things -- such as male bonuses -- to see whether any of them can at least somewhat make up for lack of female ones". 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. And the reason feminists are opposed to patriarchy is logically parallel to the reason that any woman (feminist or not) would be opposed to random stranger saying "hey from now on you are my wife". So feminists are actually MORE aware that dominance is a gender role IN A FAMILY, and thats precisely why they are opposed to gender role in a society at large since that would make them feel like that dominant guy on a TV is trying to be her husband (why? Because being dominant is associated with a husband, hence her selection of a mate).
Anyway, these are just my two cents. But what do others think of it? NOTE: I was going to say "what do you guys" think of it, but I couldn't, since Calicat jumped into that expression in the other post. And now that I tried to avoid the phrase "you guys" I found it quite difficult (I mean when I replaced "you guys" with "others" it sounded awkward). But apparently for Calicat its easy to find ways to phrase it that avoid "you guys" AND don't sound awkward. Thus, she can assert her superiority over me this way.
Last edited:
