Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>> Didn't sympathize with his posting at all, though. Not because I think
>> he was being manipulative or any of the other things you said, but
>> because he ridiculously stereotypes certain women in a fashion not
>> dissimilar to what you're doing.
>
>   Stereotypes are not *always* wrong. There *are* people who fit perfectly
> into even the most outlandish stereotypes.

Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
claimed.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

>> Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so.
>
> Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him to
> anything (getting laid, in this case)?

Never said it did. Even if it is the wrong approach, being bitter about
it isn't.

>> Didn't sympathize with his posting at all, though. Not because I think
>> he was being manipulative or any of the other things you said, but
>> because he ridiculously stereotypes certain women in a fashion not
>> dissimilar to what you're doing.
>
> Stereotypes are not necessarily wrong, but he reads immature in his emotions
> and simplistic in his reasoning. Realizing that opening doors for women

Yes, yes and yes.

> won't get you sex is a good start, but if it's to amount to anything, it's
> got to be followed by understanding why not. He starts with the wrong
> premise that opening doors for women would get him laid, and when it doesn't
> work out, he assumes it's the women's fault instead of questioning why he
> thought (or was led to think) it should work in the first place.

Not exactly what I had in mind, but not far off either.

If he's nice to someone, and that someone later complains about there
not being nice people, his point is valid. It's just his assumption that
all women who complain treated a nice person like him the way he was
treated that seems very self serving. 

Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
generalizes. He wants comfort in the notion that the world is screwed
up. He wants to believe that since his being nice didn't work for him,
that it won't work for anyone else, and it's because all women behave
the same way to nice people. He wants the world to be simplistically
screwed up to make him feel better about his experience, rather than
exploring the possibility that he just experienced a screwed up part of
it.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 17:47:31 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:55:25 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> >> where are we geeks in that classification? :p
>> >
>> >   Geeks are permanently and chronically single, so they don't count.
>>
>> bs, I'm a geek and married.  My wife's a geek too.
> 
> see the problem right there?  You were lucky enough to find a very rare
> female geek.

I don't see that as a problem, and neither does she. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:31:29 -0500, Shay wrote:

>> Oh, I don't think so - I'm a Linux geek. ;-)
>>
>>
> .. with a mullet!

Yeah, yeah, ... usually tied back, thoguh.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
> generalizes. 

Because, you know, craigslist is such a high-value peer-reviewed journal 
that rival Nature in how complete and scientifically sound its published 
articles are.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4c5e7ffc@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > "Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
> > news:87t### [at] festercom...

> > > Or, you know, he was just plain nice, and is bitter about being so.

> > Why does he think being nice (to women), whatever it means, entitles him
to
> > anything (getting laid, in this case)?

>   I'm starting to think that both you and Shay have some kind of unhealthy
> obsession with sex.
>
>   When a man tries to be nice to a woman, the motive must be sex. When a
> man listens to a woman, shares feelings and emotions, that is, he wants
> to be a good friend to the woman, the motive must be sex. When a man is
> courteus to a woman, shows respect and has good manners, the motive must
> be sex. You talk as if all men who do any of this consider women to be
> just sentient sex toys which must be conquered by whatever social and
> psychological means are necessary.

I'm nice to women. But I'm also nice to men. I am not nice to men because I
want sex with them, and I don't get mad when men I am nice to don't have sex
with me. Nor am I nice to women because I want sex with them.

You could say my being nice is not conditional on getting laid. Obviously,
the ebay poster means somethine else by being "nice".

If he (or men in general) is being extra nice to women (above and beyond
being nice to fellow men), why?

Of course sex is a motive for being "extra nice". Shay probably calls that
sleazy. I don't know, I myself have not figured out yet when men say they
are being nice to women, as if that should earn them a medal (i.e. sex).

>   This kind of "the only thing men want is sex" complete bullshit, in the
> same category as "every man is a potential rapist" and other such feminist
> nonsense. Unfortunately feminists have succeeded in indoctrinating these
> lies so well that even many men believe it (even though most of these men
> have personal evidence of the contrary, both in themselves and close
> friends who they know extremely well).
>
>   It *is* possible for a man to be friends with a woman, potentially even
> with the prospect of a lifetime companionship, *without* the primary goal
> being just "getting laid". If the friendship goes that far, it would a
> natural side-effect, but it's not the primary reason why the man wants to
> be friends with a woman. A man, like any human being, *needs* the company
> of other people (quite literally, as proved by psychology), and a lifetime
> partner is one of the best company which a person can have, so it's
natural
> for people to seek that.

Someone seeking friendship would not lament and curse the lack of sex in
return for being nice.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I'm nice to women. But I'm also nice to men. I am not nice to men because I
> want sex with them, and I don't get mad when men I am nice to don't have sex
> with me. Nor am I nice to women because I want sex with them.

And you would be upset if the guys you were nice to treated you like crap, 
never told you about a good job opening they heard of, didn't invite you out 
to go drinking but did continue to bum money off of you, made fun of you for 
how bad you were at sports when the game required one more player, etc, yes?

|| You ignored the nice guy.
|| You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with 
physical intimacy.
|| You laughed at his consideration and
|| resented his devotion.
|| You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive "just-a-" friend.


So out of the five things he lists, one has to do with sex.

Now he's talking about the women not being able to find a romantic 
relationship with a "nice" guy.

> You could say my being nice is not conditional on getting laid. Obviously,
> the ebay poster means somethine else by being "nice".

See above.

> Someone seeking friendship would not lament and curse the lack of sex in
> return for being nice.

Yes, but someone seeking romance shouldn't complain when the guy seeking 
friendship isn't around for them when they spent five years going out with 
the other type and putting down the friendly ones.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Basically, he just takes his experience, and ridiculously
>> generalizes. 
>
> Because, you know, craigslist is such a high-value peer-reviewed journal
> that rival Nature in how complete and scientifically sound its published
> articles are.

Umm...I'm not sure I see your point.

Yes, it's just a random Internet post. 

And yes, it's a meritless post. Since some people started commenting
about it and attempted to begin a serious discussion based on a pathetic
post, I felt I'd point out why it's pathetic.

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm wondering if you were implying
something more. I don't "lower" my standards that much if it happens
not to be a peer reviewed journal. If a friend of mine made sweeping
remarks like these, I'd say the same to him, if I were confident that he
would still remain a friend.<G>

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Well, OK. Let me put it this way: I feel he /wrongly/ stereotyped. I'm
> sure not all (or even most) women who complain about not being able to
> find a "nice" person have treated a nice person in the past the way he
> claimed.

  That may be true. Perhaps he made a hasty generalization. However,
it seems that he was speaking from personal experience, so at least
*some* women are probably like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Not disagreeing with you, but I'm wondering if you were implying
> something more. 

I'm saying that it's not so much "generalization" as "addressing a specific 
audience."  It's not saying "every nice guy was blown off by every woman, 
and every woman is now looking for a nice guy."  He's saying "if you're 
looking for a nice guy, and he used to be around, and you blew him off, it's 
your fault he's not around any more."

> If a friend of mine made sweeping
> remarks like these, I'd say the same to him, if I were confident that he
> would still remain a friend.<G> 

Yes, and that works where there's back-and-forth. But when there isn't, the 
appropriate way to look at it is to consider the case presented and discuss 
the merits, not consider all the cases not presented and point out that the 
one presented isn't universal.

It's a story, not a scientific analysis.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message