Are women sexist against themselves?

Post Reply New Topic

I made another post on this with similar title, where I was also talking about a lot of other things. But right now I just thought of very simple and common sense way of backing up a title, hence a separate post. Here it is:

When women choose cocky guys over nice guys, they are probably doing it because they want a confidence in a man. Now, by wanting confidence in a man, they are ultimately choosing to have a male-dominated couple. In other words, they are wanting exactly what sexist people want, that is, for man to be a head in a relationship. So, in other words, women have to be sexist in order to want that.

I am NOT agreeing with it. Quite the opposite, I think it is quite shallow. I personally believe that relationship has to be about emotional connection and not about the stereotypical chierarchies. I am simply making an observation how other people, who are part of this game, are sexist. In particular, women are sexist against themselves.

Why is it that whenever I call a woman sexist (for whatever reason) she thinks I'm calling her a lesbian?

Yes you did.
The only reason you've re-made it is because it didn't go the way you wanted to [people disagreed]. You've also posed it as a question this time [don't think you did last time.. could be wrong but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't just copy it word for word]. Let me answer it yet again: No.

Insecurity does not equal femininity.. and 'nice' doesn't either.. nor does confidence equal dominance. The 'nice' guys you seem to be talking about miss out because they are only being 'nice' trying to get a girlfriend or a f**k.. this doesn't work because they put on Micheal Jackson voices and are generally creepy. In fact they are NOT nice and are being manipulative and passive aggressive which is probably why women reject them.

In other words because YOU can't get a women you feel compelled to troll message boards blaming THEM for it and attacking their charactor in general by saying they are the ones that a biggots. This allows you to also remove yourself from any accountability for your own social failures. What also has pissed me of is this paragraph:

.. a disclaimer that in fact you aren't sexist even though you are the one that has posted a premise that is sexist and biggoted.

Marked in bold is where you directly contradict yourself. Please do not again repost things that have previously pissed me off in future.. I hate repeating myself.

All that aside, I do beleive that women are largely responsible for the unattainable beauty queen image that women are held up to.

Rail thin. It is largely impractical and unhealthy. It is taking what women find attractive(male physique), and applying it to a female body.

It is largely perpetuated by the female and male homosexual dominated fashion and beauty industry. Why, and if its deliberately blamed on the male population, I do not know, but its unjust, and unfair.

We like curves damnit! You can be 200 lbs, as long as your waist is around 3/4 the size of your hips, you'll look good to us. You can also have a 20 inch waist, as long as you have 24 inch hips.

Guys, on the other hand, should have 7/8 waist to hips.

No. I simply found a way to make things sound less silly. In previous post I was saying that women have to be sexist against other women for the fact that they don't want other women for their partners. THis sounds quite silly, and the only reason I even said it was to draw people's attention to other things I wanted to talk about. However, right now in this post I found a way to avoid such a silly statement. I am still saying that women are sexist, but their sexism plays a role NOT in their choice of partner but rather in their idea about the chierarchy of an existing couple, that is, in that male should be dominant.

Now, you might ask me that if I knew that previous post was silly, why did I write it on a first place? The answer is that I wanted to use that silliness to DRAW ATTENTION to something else, namely to relationship being conquest:

PREVIOUS POST:

1)Women choose partners based on conquest
2)Women choose men for their partners
3)1 and 2 ==> Women consider men to be superior

So, part 1 is what I was REALLY trying to discuss. But I added parts 2 and 3 in order for part 2 to draw people's attention.

Now, as far as THIS post is concerned, it passes by the whole issue of conquest. Instead it focuses on the issue about women wanting the EXISTING partner to be dominant in a relationship and this being MOTIVATION for them to "test waters" ahead of time.

Since the conquest issue is what bothers me, I am glad that I made the first post the way I did. SO you are wrong in saying it didn't go the way I wanted it to. QUite the opposite: I WANTED people to disagree with me because I find the whole conquest idea offensive so I WISH someone can refute it for me so that I don't continue to be hurt over it.

Then, you might again ask why make THIS post? Well, I simply realized that while previous post is excellent in terms of discussing conquest issues, it isn't making a best case in terms of female sexism issues due to the "silly" argument, so I decided to make separate post to discuss the latter.

Now, to sum up what I said above, I both had reasons for making the first post the way I did AND for making the second post the way I did. In other words, I need two different posts in order to look at things from two different angles.



I did NOT copy it word for word. You can see it for yourself -- here is my previous post: http://www.wrongplanet.net/asperger.htm ... highlight=



I haven't said the two are equal. I said they are equal IN A WOMAN'S HEAD, and this was why I called women sexist.



But if one is more confident than the other, don't you agree that more confident would dominate over less confident (regardless of their genders)



I agree, but the point is that jerks aren't being nice either. So, if both parties are equally bad, how come jerks have better luck? The only answer is confidence.

Appart from that, when Anne rejected me, she didn't write that since I am nice I have to be passive agressive. Instead, she simply said that I am still struggling with issues of confidence/independance and thats not what she wants in a relationship. Since she spent the whole paragraph talking about independance issues, but she didn't say a word about my being not-so-nice, I know that she meant exactly what she said, namely that she wanted someone confident just because.



First of all, I DO have a girlfriend. The reason I am talking about all the previous ones is simply because I viewed these rejections as a kind of evaluation of my character, hence I am taking it personally whether I have a girlfriend or not. Now, since you just heard me saying that I take it personally because it is EVALUATION OF MY CHARACTER, you should notice that I am NOT removing responsibility from myself. After all, if some drunk person on a street will tell me something bad, I won't be obsessed about it for so long. So the reason I am obsessed about it in this case is that I am NOT viewing these women on a level of a drunk person. Quite the opposite, I view them as people who are on a position to evaluate me, and this is precisely why I am so obsessed about it.

Now you would ask that if the above is trully the case, why would I call them sexist? Well, the point is that, as strange as it might sound, in some sense I am taking the evaluation of "bigots" MORE seriously than the evaluation of others. Here is why. Suppose a woman is NOT bigotted. In this case, she would reject me because I pose to her some kind of emotional threat. In this case, this would NOT be the evaluation of me, as a person. Instead, it would be an evaluation of the ASPECT of me that affects her. So, this leaves plenty of room for me to "make up" for that aspect in some ways that are not relevent to her but are still relevent to me. Now consider a case if she IS a biggot. In this case, she would be evaluating the aspects of me that do NOT affect her. Therefore, I would no longer be able to draw a line and say that she only evaluates part of who I am. After all, if she looks at the aspects of me that do NOT affect her, the only way to "fill in a gap" is to say she is interested in evaluating me just for the hell of it. In this case, the logical conclusion would be that since she is so interested in evaluating people, she will look at ALL the aspects of me. Therefore, her evaluation is to be taken seriously.

Now, you might ask that even if the above is true, what makes me feel that bigots are smart enough for their evaluation to be reliable? Again, lets compare bigotted to non-bigotted woman. Like was said earlier, if a woman is NOT bigotted, then her rejection will be based on perceived threat. In this case, I can always say that she doesn't know FOR SURE taht I am all that bad, she is simply trying to err on a side of caution. On the other hand, if you are dealing with bigotted woman, her rejection is NOT based on any threat at all. Therefore, there will be no reason for her to want to err on a side of caution, which means that she would spend as much time evaluating me as it takes. Hence, the only possible reason why she isn't testing her assumptions is that she is 100% sure in them. So, even if bigotted woman is less smart than non-bigotted one, you still have to look at the other part of equation, namely that she is more sure than non-bigotted one. And the latter is what bothers me.

Now, you might feel that I am contradicting myself. On the one hand, earlier in this reply I was trying to emphasize how I do NOT agree with bigots, but now all of a sudden I am saying that biggots are the first people I would listen to. The reason for this apparent contradiction is the double standart between myself verses other minorities. As far as all the other groups of people who are being discriminated agaist, for every bigot there is always someone who would speak against the bigotry. Hence, I can pick sides, and I pick a side AGAINST the bigot. On the other hand, in my case I haven't heard of a single person other than myself who would EVER point out the fact that I am not treated fairly. Now, going back to the previous paragraph, I was basically saying that the fact that bigot doesn't test his assumptions means there is nothing there to test. Well, in case of other minority groups, you can always answer this line of thought by considering OTHER PEOPLE who respond to bigot's argument and this would imply that, however sure the bigot might be, it doesn't make it TRIVIAL. On the other hand, in my case, the only anti-bigot person I can pointn to is myself, and since I am the one being evaluated, using myself as a counter-bigot would make it circular.

Quite frankly sometimes I simply feel like I am being an exception to every rule, and even the very people who say that they shouldn't judge each other for their differences would do just that in my case simply because my difference is somehow worse than differences of others. This would even include Asperger syndrome. I was evaluated in 1997 for Asperger and they said that I am very mild, like mildest 0.5%. However, whenever I am encountering actual people who have it, it seems just the opposite. Almost every aspi on this forum sounds very much NT compared to me. So, since my differences are so much different from other people's differences, this leaves a room for me to say that in my case I should listen to "bigots" since even the most non-bigotted people fall into this category.

I guess this line of thought can also be explained due to the fact that I was hurt in the past. Due to the fact that Asperger's is a disability as opposed to character flaw, everything that I suffer due to Asperger's is always about other people being biggotted in one way or the other. In other words, being VICTIM of bigots is my biggest "flaw". Hence, bigots are the first people I would look up to for my character evaluation since THEY are the people who will evaluate my biggest "flaw".

Lets put it another way. Suppose women don't care about my confidence, and they reject me simply because I am a bad person. In this case, there is no reason for me to be so upset. After all, being a bad person is my CHOICE, which means it is not who I am. Therefore, they weren't evaluating ME, rather they were evaluating MY ACTION. On the other hand, if they were judging me for lack of confidence, then I have NO CONTROL over it. I will never be confident no matter how much I try. So in this case they were, in fact, evaluating ME and nothing else.

I know it sounds silly from outside, but the point is that I was living with this for several years and EVERYONE including my mom kept telling me that "not fitting in" is a bad thing without even considering the silliness of some of the social rules. So, no wonder it is engrained into my system by now. So since, however silly it might be, I am now brainwashed into thiniking that bigots are teh first people to listen to, the very thought that women are bigotted would make me take their opinion MORE seriously. Hence, I really wish someone would refute this concept of them being so bigotted. Then I would feel a lot better.

OKAY I THINK I WENT WAY AFIELD, SO LETS BACK UP AND SAY HOW I ANSWERED YOUR QUOTE. SO HERE IT GOES:

YOU TOLD ME THAT I ACCUSE OTHERS OF BIGOTRY IN ORDER TO REMOVE MY OWN RESPONSIBILITY. MY RESPONSE IS THAT IT IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE, BECAUSE PERCEIVING OTHERS AS BIGOTS MAKES ME TAKE THEIR OPINION EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY. SO I DEALT WITH YOUR OBJECTION THAT I REMOVE RESPONSIBITLIY FROM MYSELF. AND AFTER THAT, I HAD TO DEAL WITH POTENTIAL ACCUSATION OF BIGOTRY FOR THE STATEMENT THAT BIGOTS ARE TO BE LISTENED TO. AND THE WAY I DEALT WITH TAHT ONE IS TO SAY THAT DUE TO BEING TREATED AS AN EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE, I FEEL THAT BIGOTS ARE TO BE LISTENED TO ONLY IN CASE OF MYSELF AND NOT OF ANYONE ELSE.




There are many forms of sexism. I agree that I am sexist in that I am ascribing some ridiculous thoughts to women. However, I am NOT guilty of more traditional forms of sexism. WHen I am in a relationship, I always prefer for a woman to lead a relationship because due to my Asperger I have no idea how to. This doesn't bother me at all because from my perspective relationships should be based on emotional connection between INDIVIDUALS, and who leads a relationship should depend on how does individual couple feels more comfortable and NOT on their genders. On the ohter hand, the women who reject me disagree with me on this one -- they want a man to lead a relatinship. Hence, I call them sexist.



I am not contradicting myself. Here is what I am saying:

1)I don't believe in X
2)I make an observation thta someone else believes in X

The reason I had to spell it out is that there are OTHER PEOPLE who would use part 2 in order to claim that God created people to want to do X, which means that X is a right thing to do. I do NOT agree with this line of reasoning. I want to say that part 2 is due to bigotry, period. So in order to distinguish myself from these other people I had to spell things out, and thats probably where I confused you.

Last edited by Roman on 29 Jul 2006, 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm kinda sexist against myself (not other women though) and i'm really quite sexist against men.

So that sort of balances it out.

So you're an equal opportunity gender hater??

All I know is that I'm tired of women seeking equality yet make themselves look like a helpless victim when hubby comes home after a bad day at the office, gets drunk, and beats the living crap out of them.

I do believe that sexism and oppression of women can be "internalized" to the extent to women themselves becoming part of it. But then I am mainly thinking of women performing female genital mutilation in Northern Africa, or women cajoling other women into wearing veils in the Middle East. Not women preferring cocky partners.

In fact, I prefer hanging around with confident women. That doesn't make me an "inverted sexist". And even people entering relationships where one side is explicitly dominant, and the other explicitly submissive, need not to be "sexist" in that they choose such a relationship out of their own free will, and do believe in the general equality of women and men.

@CRACK: I totally agree. Women should not look like helpless victims after being beaten up by their husbands. Why doesn't the state stop prosecuting murders of violent and abusive husbands? It might solve a lot of problems.

I don't agree with the last two replies about home violence. I mean, regardless of anyone's gender, violence is a crime, period.

Now, as far as women admitting their lack of physical strength, this is a verifiable fact, so it isn't a bias. When I speak of biases I mean things that aren't logical. For example, even though scientifically you see that men are stronger, you can NOT go from there to say what kind of family structure is the best because you can't LOGICALLY link physical strength to the ability to run family.

So, going back to the topic of the post, yes women are sexist against themselves. After all, their search for a dominant male is NOT rational. On the other hand they are NOT sexist in saying they are helpless when threatened becuase their lack of muscles is verifiable fact.

Yes, yes, and they'll also complain about it too!

Do women really choose cocky guys or are cocky guys just more likely to make the first move?

But some nice guys do make a first move and yet get turned down. To support this, I will quote a sentence where this is implied (see http://openseduction.org/nice_guys/):



The first part of the sentence, "When a Nice Guy™ makes his move on a woman" implies that the first move was, in fact, made.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that in many other cases, not making a first move is in fact the issue. However, this still supports my theory about women being sexist against themselves. After all, the concept that men are the ones who supposed to make a first move is sexist. It implies male dominance. Now, the fact that women don't make the first move when given apportunity to do so by a male with inferiority complex, implies that women themselves believe in this sexist tradition. In other words, they are sexist against themselves.

I'm not saying men should have to make the first move, just that nobody wants to, so if somebody does it, it's big plus.

As a woman and a social-psych student I tend to believe that a majority of women seek mates who will counterbalance their individual size. A small woman may seek a large man, a short woman might seek a tall man, a weak woman may seek a strong man, whereas women of larger sizes may not share the drive for such balance. Many larger women actually tend to have more options in that they tend to partner with mates of all sizes. Most women however, are comparatively smaller physically than men and are thus biologically drawn to a dominant-looking physique. This is usually attributed to the female's internal drive to find protection from danger during pregnancy and early child rearing years. Thus, in light of propogation of the species it is an important factor to find someone who can ward off the raiders and wolves and protect you physically. In today's society however, protection typically comes in the form of finances and family values. Thus while men who are more muscular and aggressive do tend to get more girls, men with more money and family values tend to have more kids. Teens and young adults are more driven by biology than brains. Females thus date bigger guys during these years but soon realize that biology is rather far behind in evolving with the rate of social change and start gravitating to "nicer" guys as they grow out of that stage and into the peak of their childbearing years (mid 20s in US culture). Such "nice" guys usually are turned down early on, they do statistically have fewer "girlfriends" but more "female friends", and in the end they are more likely to be considered androgenous rather than masculine, but they make great husbands and dads where the other guys tend to mature less quickly and dream of dating 18-25 year olds for the rest of their lives. So don't pout. If you're nice, and have a decent head on your shoulders, you are more likely to make better money and develop better relational skills with girls as you mature. Your type will win out in the long run... if you don't get down on yourself or lose hope, that is. I do agree that self-confidence (which is not the same as power or control) is important, but so too is sensivity. One without the other is just not a healthy combination if you are looking for a long term commitment.

Tragically, there is a paradox in our culture that says "seek gender equality for both sexes but conform to the roles of your parents". Just look at some of the toys we give to our children. We say to little girls, be a mommy, a bride, a cook, a maid, a humanitarian, a teacher, a nurse, a veteranarian, a volunteer. We say to little boys, be a soldier, a cowboy, an explorer, a wrestler, a construction worker, a driver, a pilot, a doctor, ANYTHING BUT a daddy, a huband, an animal lover, a teacher, or an aide. Little boys are even discoraged from living or raising a child on their own because of ideas that little boys should not want to use ovens, sewing machines, vaccuums, or take care of babys. Some people think we are on the verge of a "men's movement" because of the effects of the women's movement. Men are becoming more and more free to do more non-professional things as women take up more and more professional responsibilities. Where once men were told they were nothing more than breadwinners and competetors, they are now free to explore the intrinsic benefits of family support and child rearing.

Male adolescents and young adults today seem to struggle with certain insecurities in the presence of women. The reason that is given is that guys are not adaquately trained on how to approach girls who are now considered their equals. In fact, they find themselves confused about what to do because they have been trained from a young age through cultural socialization that they are the dominate sex and yet must be sensitive to the weaknesses of women. But there they become cornered. From one side, they don't want to seem too shy because they have been taught that bravado wins the girl, from the other side they don't want to seem too forward because they have also been taught that women may be offended by an approach that appears to demote their gender. Because there seems to be no middle ground, as guys mature they tend to choose the later because to do otherwise might land them in a legal dispute with serious reprocussions. In reality, there is a social expectation that men walk the line that divides the two sides but there is little chance that a person will safely and successfully walk such a line for any length of time. Thus, males are being forced into a revolution against society.

In addition, young adult women have recently begun to recognize this dilema among men and, while some have chosen to revel in the idea of the tables being turned, others have sought to ease the tension for "nice" guys in order to help them in paving a middle ground in which both sexes can live as equals. Many men take well to this but others tend to take offense. If a woman says "let's just be friends", it's probably because the guy either missed that step or stumbled while he was on it. Just think about what she said. Don't make assumptions about what she didn't say. She may really, actually, honestly want you to spend more time focusing on developing your friendship together and much less time trying to get into her pants. (Consider that she has likely been told that's all guys think about since she learned she had a vagina - she probably resents the fact you have a penis and that she has boobs) Most girls just want to feel like guys like them and think their attractive and fun to hang out with, they want FRIENDS. When a girl feels really safe and connected and emotionally intimate with a guy, they will natuarlly move on to the next step with that person, but it takes a long time to get to that point. Rushing things will only come across as offensive. They probably don't want to hear that some acquaintence of theirs wants to put their hands and lips and all over their body and ram a penis inside them.

Face it, if a girl means "I don't like you", she'll probably won't say, "let's just be friends".