Are women sexist against their fellow women?

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I think that women are sexist against their fellow women on the first place. I would even say even more sexist then men are. In case of men, being or not being sexist depends on their "views" that evolved over time, which means it is statistics. But in case of women it is not statistics. Rather, it is their sexual attraction. The fact that they are attracted to men rather than women makes them sexist against their fellow women.

The reason I am not making similar argument about men being sexist against men is that sexual attraction in men and women work differently. In case of men, sexual attraction and admiration are two different things; in case of women they are one and the same. Consequently, it is possible for men to admire their own gender and still be straight; but such is not possible for women. In fact, most of the men admire their fellow men, whether it be famous sports star or political figure of whatever. Personally, I admire Albert Einstein, but it doesn't make me want to have sex with him. On the other hand, I don't have anything to admire about my girlfriend, but I am attached to her very much because she offers me emotional comfort and I feel like she is the person I can share all my thoughts with, etc.

FOr girls it is quite the opposite. On the one hand nice guys finish last. But on the other hand, nice guys can always be their friends. And women share far more things with their friends than with their boyfriends -- they even go as far as sharing with their friends how they are so sick of the rud behavior of their boyfriends -- at least thats what I read on some of the dating tips that I received. To make it worth, one of these dating tips indicated that when woman shares too much with you it is a red flag that you are going to be great friend but NOT a boyfriend! So, for a woman, a friend is someone to be attached to emotionally. On the other hand, the function of a boyfirend is someone to ADMIRE -- which is why toughness always takes precedence over niceness when it comes to choosing who the boyfriend is.

In other words I can summarize it as follows:

MEN:
successful fellow men ==> admire
Girlfriend ==>relate emotionally

WOMEN:
boyfriend ==> admire
Friend (whether men or women) ==> relate emotionally

As you can see from abouve diagram, both men and women end up admiring men, which makes it a no-win situation for women in terms of being admired.


I am going to bring two women who LJBF-ed me to back off my case:

Anne

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=


Katie

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=



In case of Anne, she met me in math class and she obviously liked me a lot. However, she didn't want to be in a relationship with me due to the fact that she looks for confidence in her boyfriend and the fact that I am so influenced by my mom implies that this just isn't me. HOwever, despite all that, she was seeing me every day and we were studying together all day long. She was cooking for me, inviting me to see a movie with her, to run with her, and even offered to go to California with me during the two weeks I was going to visit my mom. Given the fact that I don't believe in pre-marital sex for religious reasons, I simply can't see ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE between this kind of friendship verses relationship. In fact, when she was trying to make me feel better, she asked me herself "how would our relationship be any different if we were in a relationship?" She also said that "you are my bestest friend, I would be devastated if I lost you as a friend, etc" SO the only way I can make sense of it is that she simply didn't want to give me a title of a "boyfriend" in order not to "give me credit" for being "independant" or "confident" which I am not. In other words, the word "boyfriend" for her is just a title of someone she is to admire, which has nothing to do with emotional attachment. IN OTHER WORDS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT AS FAR AS ANNE IS CONCERNED, BOYFRIEND IS SIMPLY A TITLE, HTAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN, SAY, A TITLE OF CHESS CHAMPION.

Moving on to Katie. In her case, when we just met she turned me down from a relationship on a basis that I should be happy with myself before I can be happy with others. However, she was more than willing to be my friend. In fact, she have said that this is exactly what friends are for, to provide me emotional happiness. THis is something relationship can't do because of potential problems while the two are together. In her own words "relationships are meant to come and go; friends are meant to last"; and when I am upset "friends are the ones to tell me that I am absolutely wonderful", on the other hand, relationship would be just the opposite -- it would require me to be happy with myself in order ot be "qualified". So in other words relationship is like a prise in some kind of sport to which I should be qualified. Friendship, on the other hand, is emotional support. SO far this is VERY similar to what happened with Anne.

Now, half a year later, I told her that I was no longer as upset as I used to be, and now I wanted a second chance for relationship because I was finally "happy with myself". After she have avoided the topic for a while, she have eventually told me that the other thing that turned her off is that when i was describing my ex as being "fat" I un-intentiallly implied negative connotation which turned her off since she is overweight herself. Then I corrected her misunderstanding that this wasn't what I meant and in fact it was an opposite statement, I was trying to say that being fat is fine with me since otherwise the other fat girl won't be my ex since she won't be my partner to start with. THE KEY POINT IS THAT SHE BELIEVED ME -- IN FACT SHE APPOLOGISED FOR HAVING BEEN IMMATURE (NOTICE PAST TENSE). Nevertheless she still only wanted to be my friend. Why? Again, because being boyfriend is equilvalent to winning a type of a medal. So, by "rules of dating game" I have already "striked out". So even though she admitted that she was immature DURING the time that I striked out, there is nothing she can do about the fact that I already have done it. That is, DATING GAME HAS A RULES. In fact she still kept telling me that the friendship that we had was trully great and if some time down the road it will lead to anything it would be "more than any relationship would ever bring". So yes she liked me. BUT ... she can't bend the RULES. Can't call me "boyfriend" after I "striked out".

In other words, I have two findings so far:

a)Friends= emotional support. Boyfriend = someone to admire
b)Dating game has RULES and once you strike out you are out

Now the summary of both parts is that

boyfriend = champion

So, going back to original topic, this would imply that BY DEFINITION women admire men and men alone. If they EVER admired women, then they would of had women for their boyfriends, given that their definition of boyfriend is a champion. So why won't they want their own to win the game???

By the way another interesting observation that I had is that I saw a lot of women hugging other women, while there is no such thing as men hugging other men. So who knows perhaps women LIKE hugging other women ... BUT, they can't call their fellow women their "boyfriends" because they always lose to men in all the competitions of strenghth, confidence, etc.

In much teh same way that women are looking for emotional support to males whom they have LJBF-ed, they do even more so with their fellow girlfriends. In other words, LJBF-ed males, as well as their female freinds are both in the same category. Both are excelent sources of emotional support, yet both lost in the "game" to their partners. So, the very fact that women LJBF ALL of their female freinds, 100% of them, alone would speak for the idea that they are sexist against women. THis implies that they would have no problem with bible having anti-woman prejudice since they are guilty of the same thing.

I know I got long winded and you might not keep track of it, so let me summarize

What I read in dating tips plus the two examples of women I have dealt with ==> Women define their boyfriend based on winning the game as opposed to emotional connection ==> The fact that women don't choose their fellow women for their partners implies that they believe that their fellow women are inferior to men ==> They won't have any problem with bible teaching female inferiority

Well, this is a complicated subject because you really CAN'T think up rules for how it works for EVERYONE, that just isn't true. In my opinion, if you aren't emotionally attached to your partner, than WHY are you together? Just for the sex? A boyfriend I would admire, I mean ofcourse I would have to admire him if I love him and I'm proud to say he's my boyfriend, than yeah I would automatically admire him. But the reason we would be together is not just attraction but EMOTIONAL attachment. If I didn't feel comfortable that I could tell him ANYTHING, than I don't know what would be the point of being together. I always thought your boyfriend/girlfriend is supposed to also be your best friend - the one person in the world, that if you had to choose only one person to EVER be with, it would be that person, cause you are emotionally and physically attached to them.

The only exception to this,I've found, is my best friend Alan. We have all the right friend 'ingredients' but I do not feel attracted to him (could also be because he's online and I never did see his picture or hear his voice yet). He told me that I am on a very rare list of special people in his life. He has told me things that he HASN'T told his girlfriend. And why? Because it involves the kind of touchy subjects that if you were to tell your lover, it could really hurt them, and especially as the guy, you want to protect your girlfriend, you would never want to hurt her. But I was telling him, its absolutely crucial to be open and honest about things that bother you the most with your girl. If she's gonna feel hurt or not, leave that up to HER, and just be there to console her and talk to her about it, etc. This was when he realised, maybe he doesn't love her as much as he thought he did.

Now whether I admire women? No, generally I don't, and I'll tell you why. Partly because of jealousy I'm sure, and because all too often, in reality and OFCOURSE on TV and in other medias, all I ever see are the slu*ty, dirty, or atleast thin and beautiful girls. They are so skanky and they are just ready to 'go wild', and I hate these types! And whenever I try to buy clothes, I mean I'm not even very much overweight at all, but yet everything in stores is still meant for tiny sexy little bodies. All I ever hear from these young people are whether a guy is hot enough for them or not, or the party they were at, and so forth.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't respect men on the whole either. Men are pigs. In fact, I don't respect humans on the whole overall.I don't consider myself human, so I'm trying to live in this world of a sick species where something went very wrong at some point. That doesn't mean I hate EVERYONE, ofcourse not,there's plenty of good people in this world as well. I wait and see whether the people who I know of or meet if they turn out to be admirable or not.

I don't see either men or women on the whole as admirable if I don't know them. But its very easy to hate my fellow females when they are so filthy or so sexy, and they get jobs or dress in such a way that makes me embarrassed to be a female. And then the guys that I would date would want me to be like them as well, or else I'm boring. *shrugs*

But absolutely, I don't want to even bother with a romantic relationship unless its has a chance to become a serious emotional bond. The act of dating is in looking around, finding out who may be compatible (and I haven't even gotten THAT far yet), but if I had a true love, I would admire him, and be emotionally attached, and I would hope he'd feel the same. Or perhaps my idea of love is too perfect and too unrealistic, but thats just what I'm looking for. If I can't find it, then maybe in the afterlife my man is already waiting for me.

Roman,
So you believe that because most women aren't lesbians they are sexist? There are plenty of women I admire.. and I'm not gay. I wouldn't assume all men are idiots going by your post either.

Roman

Personal Anecdotes do not a scientific study make.

While they are amusing, they cannot be extrapolated to the extent you have.

This does make you look like an idiot, but I wouldn't extrapolate that to all men (or aspies).

I agree with you. In fact, from my perspective, there shouldn't be any rules, since what matters is whether or not there is a connection, as opposed to whether you are able to "win" some type of game that has rules. I guess what bothers me is that I simply SAW some of the rules, and in fact they are too obvious and too simple. So I guess I just feel that this is a bit unfair, and also I feel that this negates the personal connection part of it. The question is what if you ahve emotional connection with someone that doesn't fit these rules? In this case you call that person "friend" instead of "boyfriend" just like I have experienced with these two girls. And this leads me to a question of what do you mean by boyfriend? Is it just all aobut rules?



Exactly. That is the exact question I want to ask. Basically, the point is that personally I believe it would make the most sense if thigns were to work by emotional connection. YET, this clashes with what I SEE, where things are working only by rules, winning, etc. And this leads me to think up these rather ridiculous thoughts on what might be going on in the heads of people who seem to be bound by these rules.

For example, can you explain to me why nice guys finish last? I mean, they are the best ones to build an emotional connection with. So what makes them finish last?

Okay, I know you might say that you like the fact that they are nice, but you don't like their lack of confidence. So, you are basically between rock and hard place in terms of choosing between someone who isn't confident and someone who isn't nice. I guess this leads me to ask two questions.

The first question is why a confindence an issue anyway? WHy is it even a part of equation? I mean if you are trully emotionally connected with someone, you aren't there to evaluate them on any scale or by any rules. I simply don't see how the lack of confidence would stay in a way of building emotional connection. In fact, I feel a little bit of the opposite -- people who are less confident tend to be more attached.

The second question is as follows. Suppose I took it for granted that women want someone more confident. In this case, I go back to the explanation in previous paragraph that due to unfortunate situation that confidence and nice-ness don't go hand in hand, nice guys "happen" to finish last. In this case, there is a way to test this theory. So here I am. I am either confident or I am not. Basically my confidence level stays the same during the span of couple of weeks. So, I approach two women. I am nice with one, and nasty with another one. If I have better luck with the one htat I am nice to, then it means that women like nice guys, and it is something else about these nice guys that turns them off. However, if I have better luck with teh one I am nasty to, then this would imply that women prefer nastiness to niceness. Now, according to dating tips I was receiving on the internet, I will in fact have better luck with the one I am nasty to. I have read in some dating tips that if a woman tries to get emotional support from you, you have to run. Otherwise, this will put you in "best friend" category, and rule you out from boyfriend category.

So how can I possibly explain such phenomenon? The only explanation is to say that women are not looking for emotional connection in their partners, but rather they are simply look for some kind of sport champion and if you are trully a sport champion then surely you won't waste your time in being nice. Hence, women use their best friends for niceness and boyfriends for title.


In fact, there is also a different question. Appart from the question WHY are you together, there is also a question of WHAT DOES IT MEAN to be together. That is, how is your definition of boyfriend is any different from your definition of best friend. So, in my case I don't believe in pre-marital sex for religious reasons. This means that whatever it is, it isn't sex. Now, it isn't emotional connection either -- after all Anne was perfectly willing to give me all emotional connection she could. So the only possibility that is left is simply a title. Being called a boyfriend is prestigious, thats why it is better than being best friend. Now, if you stick with that theory, ti would make much more sense why women choose confidence over emotional connection. After all, they can still be together with the nice guy, and be even closer with him than they ever were with a boyfriend. They are simply not giving him a title, which is kind of a moot point.



Yes, this would make perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, most women don't feel taht way. After all I got on dating tips taht if your girlfriend feels like she can tell you ANYTHING and begins to emotionally open up to you, you are supposed to end this kind of conversation. They told me it is a kind of a test taht women use to see if you are confident enough or whatever. So, if you actually continue that kind of open conversation, then you fail their test, and you are going to be LJBF-ed.

As far as you are concerned, you told me yourself taht you don't particularly like the way the world operates and you don't identify with others too much. This is probably why you are making so much sense in terms of what you look for in a partner. I also don't identify with people either so we aer in the same boat here. So taht is great. But anyway, the point of this post is to try to explore basically teh way NT women think, and this is basically in a context of my frustration about it.



Okay here is an interesting question right here. So remember I have asked few paragraphs earlier what does it mean for me to be a boyfriend of someone verses best friend of someone in the context that I don't believe in premarital sex for religious reasons. So now let me ask you similar question. In the situation of you and him, you two can't possibly do anything physical because you are far away. So, when you say that he is your best friend and NOT your boyfriend, what are you referring to when you make this distinction? The only possible answer that would make sense is emotional connection. But you see, you are saying you have great emotional connection with him. So this is where I am puzzled.

So you said that you weren't attracted with him. But you see, attraction is not a MEANING of boyfriend. Rather it is a factor that CAUSES you to choose someone to be your boyfriend. Technically, you can CHOOSE to be in a relationship with someone you are not attracted to. The reason you aern't doing it is that there are negative consequences to it, such as the fact taht you won't enjoy sex with taht person. So, attraction doesn't define a relatioship. Rather it defines one of the influences of whether or not you will WANT a relationship. Therefore, if teh word "relationship" won't have any of ITS OWN definition, then anytyhing else would become irrelevent since you simply won't be able to phrase a question "do I want a relatiosnhip" to which the attraction (or something else) would be an answer. So basically, I am going back to asking you why can't you simply call him your boyfriend for the hell of it. After all, since the two of you are far away, you don't have to ahve sex with him, hence no damage is made by him being your "boyfriend".

So lets go back to the question of what we mean by boyfriend. If you can have emotional connection with someone WITHOUT calling him a boyfriend, does it mean taht teh definition of boyfriend is something else? Okay I heard you that you said that it was an EXCEPTION. But you see, definitions don't have any exceptions. So if your DEFINITION of boyfriend were based on emotional connection, there would be no way for him, or anyone else, to be an exception. Thus, the eniviteable conclusion is that your DEFINITION of a boyfriend is something OTHER THAN emotional connection. The correlation between the two is a strongly held PHENOMENON, but not a definition.

So, again, what IS your definition of a boyfriend? You might want to say it is physical, but htis isn't an answer either. After all, if you were "attracted" to this guy then he would of been your boyfriend WIHTOUT anything physical since he is far away. Okay, so then may be it is attraction? No, this isn't the answer either. After all, you might be attracted to a stranger as you walk down the street, but this won't make him your boyfriend. Could it be mutual attraction? Nope. Me and Anne were mutually attracted to each other she admitted to having been looking at me in the math class, and once in the library she asked me if it is okay if we look at each other's eyes, yet she didn't want to call herself my girlfriend. Let me explain it differently.

SO, AS I RAN OUT OF ALL POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS OF BOYFRIEND, I AM LEFT WITH THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION. A BOYFRIEND IS A TITLE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAVE WON THE GAME. IT IS A SYNONYM OF A WORD CHAMPION. SO, YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT SINCE THAT GUY WASN'T "CAPABLE" OF FINDING A WAY OF MAKING YOU FEEL ATTRACTED TO HIM, HE SHOWED HIMSELF AS "WEAK" AND THEREFORE HE DIDN'T WIN A TITLE OF A CHAMPION. Now, I might be wrong. In fact I know I am probably confused in a lot of things, which is why I made this post on the first place to get some feedback. So don't get me wrong here, I am not accusing you or anyone else. I simply want to know if indeed my theory is true, or if I don't understand somehting, what could it be?



Okay, this is what happends in guy's head. But what I was asking is that there is something else that happends in girl's head that leads to the same conclusion, yet I am not sure of reasons.

Okay, as far as Anne was concerned, when I was discussing with her the issue of confidence/independance, she brought up the fact that sometimes I forget to eat. But you see, she was more than willing to cook for me. So lets look at these two facts:

a)When me and Anne were friends, she was willing to cook for me
b)If we are in a relationship, then this would be a problem

So, in other words, the issue in her head is NOT the time it takes to cook for me. Rather, the issue is giving me a TITLE of a "boyfriend" which would contradict the fact that I didn't "win" that title by eating 3 times a day by myself.

Also, let me quote part of her email: ".... when I am in a relatioship with someone, I expect that person to be very independant and confident in himself as individual ... "

Now, notice the first clause, "when I am in a relationship with someone". In other words, if she is NOT in a relationship with that person, then lack of independance won't bother her. This is supported by my observation: since we were NOT in a relationship, it didn't bother her to remind me to eat, and also support me emotionally, etc. But if we were in a relationship, then it would. WHy? THe fact that it takes too much energy isn't the answer. After all, she was already taking up too much energy as she was helping me while being my friend. So the only answer is again, THE TITLE.



I 100% agree with you. THis is what confuses me about most people.



I 100% agree with everything you said. Unfortunately most people don't think the way you do, and this is what puzzles me about them, and forces me to come up with such theories to explain it.

Last edited by Roman on 25 Jun 2006, 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

The premise of this belief is the fact that women base their choice of partner on how much they admire him as opposed to anythign else. This is what I don't understand about women on the first place. So, ineviteably, this would lead me to absurd conclusions.

Anyway, as far as you admiring women, that woudl be a different KIND of admiring. Like you can admire someone for being strong, or you can admire someone for being caring. So basically, I am saying that when you choose your partner you base your choice on how much you admire them for being strong, and this would rule out women.

However, this would still be sexist on your part. Because you would be taking a belief that men are stronger than women a little bit too seriously. The only way NOT to be sexist is strictly base it on your heart. In this case, of course you would choose men simply because your heart falls in love with men but not with women. The problem though is that I have observed that women do NOT base it on their heart and INSTEAD base it on their evaluation of strenght. So the fact that it is logic and not heart opens a door for a claim that they might be sexist for nto choosing women.

But you see, when I read dating tips on the internet, they only confirmed the conclusions that I came up with based on these two women. In particular, the following phenomena are quite general:

1)Women look for confidence in their partner
2)Nice guys finish last
3)Women often use their friends as an "emotional whores" to get the emotional connection that they don't get from their boyfriends
4)Once you have been LJBF-d the game is over

Now, the connection between 1, 2, and 3 is quite obvious.

As far as connection of these three to part 4, I will use Katie as an example. So here is what happened.

a)Katie rejected me for reason X
b)She later learned that X was not true
c)However she still rejected me

So, in light of part b, the rejection described in part c is NOT due to X. So it has to be due to something else. That something else is the fact that she have rejected me BEFORE. In other words she is rejecting me for the fact that I have been rejected. Being rejected = being a victim, NOT being a threat. So she victimises me for being a victim. This can be explained in terms of "nice guys finish last" and "women look for confidence in men" phenomenon.

This also goes back to the fact taht tehre are RULES and WINNING which also rulles out emotional connection part of it.

But anyway, now you are going to ask me agaoin why am I basing it on only two girls. So let me repeat my answer: the rules 1 through 4 can be read from dating tips I get online. So this means that they are general. These two girls simply drew my attention to these dating tips.

1. Not all men are stronger than women.
2. What rules out women for me is the fact that they have vaginas.
3. You are an idiot.

[Double post because edit isn't working]

Roman,
I don't mean to sound harsh but if you're going to admit you don't understand women [self evident] perhaps you should try not making ignorant claims about them.

Okay I know you were being sarcastic in some of your 1, 2, and 3. HOwever, I will respond to it as legitimate points because in my head THEY ARE. So, sarcasm aside, here it goes:

And not all men are being chosen by EACH PARTICULAR WOMAN either. So, the one man that a given woman choses, in her eyes, is stronger than women. Of course, different women have different definitions of strength -- some define it as physical strenght, others as emotional confidence, and there are many things to look for in a big category of emotional confidence which differs by each woman. Therefore, as a result of definition of "strenght" being different between different women, it is true that EACH man is stronger than ALL women IN THE EYES OF AT LEAST ONE FEMALE (namely his girlfriend). But it still leaves a possibility for him to be weaker than other women in eyes of other females. So this accomodates your statement that not all men are stronger than women.

In fact, your statement that not all men are stronger than women only SUPPORTS my theory. This explains that some of the weaker men, including myself, are being CONFUSED WITH WOMEN in the eyes of the women that LJBF us. Thats probably part of a reason why Katie told me that friends can give you something that no relationship ever would. You see, women are more open about some things with each other more than they are with men. THerefore, if a man is so weak that they think he is a woman, then they woudl be equally open about things with him.



I know you are sarcastic on this one, but I am going to deliberately take it literally and adress it the way it stands:

Like I mentioned in the previous replies, if you are talking about someone who doesn't believe in premarital sex for religious reasons, then it would automatically rule out any and all explanations of the kind you just provided.




No, I am an aspi

Roman,

Any sarcasm is due to the fact that your views are offensive. Going my your logic any straight man who isn't willing to have sex with another man is sexist as well.. oh hang on.. you already covered your bases with nonesense so that your views could ONLY apply to women! Guess what? Thats sexist.. whats more it made no sense.


You obviously have issues with women [seems you aren't the only one] so are trying to publicly denounce them trying to hide it within contradictory statements. If you want to learn about women and how they really think.. ask us. And.. I am sorry for calling you an idiot.. I called you it because you kept saying idiotic things. This is completly unrelated to aspergers.

I admire other women and I am NOT a lesbian. Just because I am not sexually attracted to other women does not make me prejudiced against them.. my sexual orientation merely means I am biased to men. Understand now?

No this has nothing to do with me being sexist against women. Rather, it is the fact taht being a man I know my reasons why I don't want to be with other men, hence I don't have to make any guesses there. But in case of women, there are a lot of blank spaces I don't get, and my mind simply fills in the blanks.

By the way, I can use this post to make a good case AGAINST sexism. After all, traditional gender roles in family might well be what is to blame for why men and women operate differently. Since traditionally men used to be head of a family, these traditionaly views got so much ingrained into woman's mind that she is looking for a leader, which would explain the whole "winning the game" aspect of it.

But again, I am only making guesses, I am not claiming to KNOW anything. So the non-sexist theory would be that it is historical values that affected the way women view things. Of course, there is sexist alternative, namely that women are wired this way. So, this is just one more question on a list for a debate between sexists and non-sexists; but as far as this post is concerned up untill this point I haven't argued either way. I was simply stating facts of what women might think.



And I HAVE been asking this (as is evidenced on the links provided below). In fact the intention of this post itself is again to ASK A QUESTOIN. The reason I chose this kind of ridiculous way for asking has nothing to do with wanting to offend. Rather, it has to do with the fact that my mind already filled in the blanks, and the way it did makes me feel bad. In particular, I feel that I "lost a game" by not "having received credit" from some girls. Therefore, part of the answer to my question should be REFUTTING some of the theories that I propose, because these theories are the very things that make me feel very bad, so I need someone to refute them. One way of doing it is to provide alternative explanations for all of the above observations I have made. So yes I do need to ask. But at the same time part of the question should point to the particular suspicions I have about women, in order for them to be refutted.

This isn't just about women. In school I do it all the time. When I don't understand something about MATH or PHYSICS, the first thing I would do is prove it wrong. Everyone thinks I am argumentative or whatever. But in fact what I look for is for someone to FIND A MISTAKE in my proof. But, instead of finding a mistake in my proof why something is wrong, they would instead present a proof why it is right. But you see it doesn't help me any because it doesn't refute MY proof. In fact it only makes it worse because if I take my proof why something is wrong together with the proof of professors why it is right, I end up proving a contradiction. So I have a LOT Of parallel talk when it comes to ANY kind of quesiotn, women or otherwise. And in each case, I look like I am trying to prove that everyone is an idiot, while in fact my true intention is for them to refute my proof.

Anyway, ehre is an evidence of my questions I asked earlier:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=

http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/sho ... p?t=115616

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/sho ... hp?t=85524

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/sho ... hp?t=49177






But you see, Anne was attracted to me, but she chose not to be in a relationship with me because of my feminine quality -- lack of independance. So the bias "towards" me was there alrgiht sicne she WAS attracted to me. Thus, what stopped the relationship is some OTHER bias which was AGAINST me and thus canceled her original bias towards me. THat other bias against me was the one against my weakness. So if there is bias against weakness, and women are weak, this would also constitute bias against women.

Last edited by Roman on 25 Jun 2006, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Oink oink.

did she specifically say this to you, or have you inferred it? perhaps she is attracted to you as a friend, but just not sexually attracted to you. there is a difference.

how do you come to this conclusion that women are weak? i've personally met more than one strong woman.
your problem is that you are basing your assumptions on a few examples of women you have known, and from internet dating tips. this is why you are coming across as sexist. not all women are the same, you should try and take people as they come, and not make assumptions.

She said it to me in part 3 of the rejection letter. Here it is:







1)GIven that I don't believe in pre-marital sex, why would sexual aspect be relevent? The only way to explain why sexual attraction is relevent if you are NOT going to have sex, is to claim that women want to call someone a "boyfriend" to give him a title for the fact that he was CAPABLE of making them sexually attracted to him. Of course there might be other reasons of which I am simply ignorant, and this is what causes me to ask this question.

2)The way I know she was sexually attracted to me is that she told me she was looking at me during the math class, before she ever talked to me. She even said she was looking at me from day 1. Furthermore, even when we were "friends" she once asked me if it is okay that we look at each other's eyes for few minutes, and by the way she looked I could tell she was attracted.

3)I can also tell she probably had SOMETHING in mind because I learned that she was asking around people about me before she ever approached me. For example, she told me that she learned from one of her classmates that he was in a different class with me, which I ended up dropping, and he told her about how I was solving problems in original way. THIS CONVERSATION HAPPENED BEFORE SHE EVER APPROACHED ME. So this makes me think that her original intention was to be in a relationship with me, which implies that she WAS attracted to me. But what turned her off is what I told her about my mom being overprotective. So the only way it turned her off, in my mind anyway, is that she didn't want to "give credit" to someone who is not "independant" by calling him "boyfriend".



Like I explained to the other person, there are a lot of criteria to define strong verses weak, and these criteria vary from person to person. But in the eyes of every particular woman, the one man who is her partner is at least stronger than women, and probably is stronger tahn a lot of men, too.

By the way, I don't even have to personally believe in ANY kind of statement about strenght or weakness or anyone. The premise of the argument is whom does A WOMAN evaluate as strong or weak. So basically, I have to say that women think of each other as weak, whether or not they are actually weak. Thats why I put in a title that women are sexist against themselves. Now, why they think of each other as weak? One possibility is that they are; BUT there is also another possibility -- namely that it is a bias that had been engrained into EVERYONE (both men and women) throughout the generations. Now, of course there are also feminist women, but I can always argue that feminism is on a conscious level, and it doesn't totally undo the sexism that is on sub-conscious level.



But internet dating tips are based on A LOT of examples. So the fact that the few examples are backed up by dating tips makes them stronger.

Last edited by Roman on 25 Jun 2006, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hmm Roman

Some ANECDOTES to bust your theories. It only takes one anecdote to bust a generalisation. Not one or two anecdotes to infer/extrapolate/make a generalization.

The most successful boyfriend-girlfriend relationships I've had - I have always made friends with the guy way before we started dating. I don't like dating strangers. The guys have always been part of my circle of friends or I have introduced them into various friend groups.

Nice guys who finish last - aren't actually so nice. They're more like you - the kind that only want to be friends with a woman so they can have sex, and then blame women when the women are not interested. Nothing worse than a guy who only wants one thing and is so desperate he will pretend to make friends in order to get it. These guys are reasonably easy for me to get rid of though - I tell them I will never have sex with them. Further reading -
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/ ... s/ng.shtml
And you need to read the manipulator stuff too - that girl (of the email) is not a good example of a pyschologically healthy woman - the sort you'd want to have a relationship with, she's the sort of girl you need to run from as fast as you can, she did you a favour - now stay away from her.

I like to keep my emotional baggage to myself, or I share it around evenly. Every boyfriend ( the sort that get some sex with me), has copped some emotional unloading from me. It doesn't make for sex one way or the other.

Until you learn the basic rules of logical reasoning, having discussions with you is pointless. You just make stuff up to suit yourself while ignoring the facts belting you over the head. How convenient and nice of you.

Oh and another thing - if those dating sites' advice actually worked - you wouldn't be bitching in here about women - would you? Not everything on the internet is completley accurate or factual or applies in all situations. Even if it is repeated on the internet a lot. Did we go to the moon or not? Who really blew up the WTC? (Hint - the Iraqis had nothing to do with it) What if all the consipiracy theories were true? By your theory - the same things are on the internet over and over - so they must be true.