This "nice guys vs jerks" nonsense has to stop.

Post Reply New Topic

Having one partner or multiple partners doesn't affect the chance of pregnancy with contraceptives; frequency does. Women have both risks; men have the STD risk, and the risk of having a child whose life they are not a part of. As someone who has experience in the latter, to trivialize or dismiss the feelings of the male gender is incredibly sexist and thoughtless.


M.

So, Sunshower, how do you feel your thread is going?
It's even gotten more replies than the original one, lol T_T

I can assure you if contraceptives and the morning after pill are used, becoming pregnant becomes a statistical anomaly. I can also assure you that if said contraceptives are used correctly, there is no reason for someone to become pregnant.


When men are sexist we are branded chauvinist pigs, when women are sexist it's nature's fault...


Yes, society is to blame for many wrongs. Like the fact that pregnancy is seen as a dirty nasty disgusting thing, the fact that pregnancy is seen as a hindrence. Sex wasn't intended so people could have "fun", the whole point of it being "fun" is to reinforce it's purpose, to create more people.

Woemare are able to have children, they know exactly which children are theres and they have more "ownership" over said children than their fathers do. Women get to make the important decisions when it comes to their children and the legal system backs this right up. But you know? that would be a sexist claim and point-scoring.

We're all people and the relative gains and losses are determined by the individual, not their sex.

1) Women do not have any more ownership than the man does. It's 50/50, because it requires both a man and a woman to have a child. As yet, humans are not capable of asexual reproduction as far as I am aware.

2) The woman has to carry the baby and cope with all the emotional baggage that goes with it; the man can simply walk away. That is what gives women more to lose. Also, a man's fertility period is longer than a woman's.

3) The legal system is sexist if it favours the mother by default.




Only up to a point. See above.


EDIT: Isn't this whole debate about the values of sex rather off-topic as far as this thread is concerned?

The legal system of nearly every western country (of which the majority of WP are members of) favours the female in legal disputes. This would imply females having more ownership, and not a 50/50 split.


Men also have emotion baggage to contend with, women can also simply walk away and women can have an abortion of said pregnancy with the man having absolutely no say in the issue. Said woman can goto court, and make sure said man has barely any contact with said child when it is born. Men will also be vilified by society if they leave a pregnant women, yet a woman leaving a man will not be vilified, if anything they will be pitied and given huge amounts of support.

Not to mention that pregnancy is NOT a loss and i'm offended people keep referring to it as such. Which brings me back to the point that it's based on the individual NOT the sex.

Family law is TOTALLY sexist against men. So Michjo is right that society gives the mother more rights than the father when it comes to their children. From my perspective, Womanhood is a biological Disadvantage but a social Advantage.

We have veered off topic yes, but to be honest it's been off-topic for a long time. With the constant male sexist veiws and female sexist veiws being thrown about. Plus there are 2 or 3 other threads dealing with this exact thing in one way or another.


I actually think both biologically and socially things are pretty much near the even mark. However they are only even because society favours men and women in different areas (usually with very little basis).From a biological PoV, women have better phsyical health, better mental health and live longer than men.

And to get things back on topic...
I think the stereotypes come mainly from people's youth, their first few failed relationships or their first few failed pseudo-relationships. People have an over-exaggerated sense of entitlement and expect to get what they feel they deserve, this applies equally to both sexs. Until we've been in a veiw failed relationships we do not have a good idea of what we are meant to be looking for in a partner. Or how to present ourselves in a way that other people will find attractive. I think the stereotype applies just as accurately to quite a lot of guys as well, since guys will usually pick someone who looks better over someone who is nice.

Good point, it has been off-topic a while (and I am equally guilty). That was an interesting debate, so I don't mind.

The other threads popped up after this one (I'm not referring to the original "nice guy vs. jerk" threads because they endorsed the opposite of my viewpoint), but if they were already there I wouldn't have started this one because I know repeated threads can get irritating.

But yes, back to the topic - I feel we've really covered a lot of ground on the issue, and we should look at using the conclusions we've drawn to enact change (in the forum at least to begin with). Ideally I'm hoping that this thread will provide some insight for those who swear by the stereotype (of which there seems to be a heck of a lot, judging by the fact that there is even a sticky on it), and hopefully reduce some of the sexism and other associated problems that crop up again and again.

I'm a nice jerk

I can be a real jerk but I don't think guys are into females who act like jerks dammit...

Just admit it that this thread has not helped at all, and only added more fuel to the fire, seriously, MORE people have been making more threads about this now.

I don't get laid, therefore I am a nice guy. Well, yes, it has been helpful.

My 2 cents:

Jerk: high-testosterone phenotype.
Nice guy: low-testosterone phenotype.

We live in a current society where women favor the high-testosterone men (more physical / protect / strong trophy boyfriend).

I think I should offer you my view on this matter...

Oftentimes while in school or out in public, many of the girls that we Aspie guys might find attractive tend to favor NT men that appear (at least to the Aspie male) to be unappealing or objectionable. Furthermore, I for one have been rejected so many times by girls I've been interested in, that I couldn't stand to be rejected anymore. And like a few other Aspie men may be on here, I've basically grown bitter and distrustful of the outside world, because of having to put up with being rejected and outcast by the NTs out there...These last ten years I've practically spent as a sort of a hermit, because of my distrust of the outside world brought on by these past experiences.
Perhaps this is a factor as to why us single Aspie guys tend to view a lot of the popular NT 'alpha' males out there as jerks...

Tim (aka the Slipperman)

Last edited by Slipperman on 01 Jul 2009, 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree Slipperman. Another mention is all women seemed "s**t scared" of guys that are unpopular with other guys and don't fall into any hierarchical compliance / mould / group, more so in High School and College where the tables are laid for the future (esp. esteem wise) (typical male aspie trait is to avoid intra-male hierarchy... at least act like it doesn't exist in a "We aren't chimps you know, we're more evolved than that" kind of way). Even the nicest, shyest, cutest, even religious girls were like that, and it was the last straw to see them with popular "Jerks" a few months or weeks after being turned down. Yet women say they hate guys that aren't being themselves and prefer individuals ?

Call me behind the times but what does the "NT" abbreviation stand for ?

Last edited by Ratae on 30 Jun 2009, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It took me awhile to figure it out myself, but on here it usually stands for either 'neuro-typical' or 'normal-thinking'...we usually apply it to those who fall outside of the autistic spectrum (i.e. don't have Asperger's or any other Autism-Spectrum disorder)

Tim (aka the Slipperman)