Look out! It's a Nice Guy! DESTROY HIM!!

Post Reply New Topic

Because you said something that was probably perceived as misogynistic. Due to the extensive issues with that this forum has experienced in the past, even fairly minor stuff can have action taken against it.

Nope. That was not the case. Neither was any personal insult on it.

What it's curious since I have been sistematically insulted in this thread, and I haven't seen any of those post deleted. But anyway, double standards is comon usage when it comes to some matters here...

A few things:

1) Part of communication is interpretation and inference; therefore, although you may not think your post was offensive, if the moderators disagree then they are going to delete your post. The mods aren't perfect, and I'm sure they've made mistakes and deleted harmless posts in the past, but they do the best job they can to prevent members being hurt by the words of others. If you really don't see how what you said was offensive, then why not send one of the mods a message quoting what you said and asking for clarification? There's no shame in asking how you may be able to get things right next time.

2) This bickering between you and Schneekugel is derailing the thread and making it hard to maintain an otherwise friendly discussion. I think I understand the point you are trying to make and also why Schneekugel finds it offensive, so here is my best effort at resolving your argument:

Your point, Greb, is this:

In the past women had a value based on their being female. This defined their social roles and social status and this value was exchanged when they married. In exchange, the woman got a man who was preferably rich, well-connected, and was of good social standing who would be the breadwinner and look after her. Nowadays the rules are different: women are allowed to work, vote, and do a number of other things they could not in the past; they are now more or less equal with men in terms of the opportunities they have. This means that whatever value they had previously by virtue of being a woman is no longer able to be exchanged because, well, their being female is no longer regarded as a bargaining tool. So now women have to do the same sorts of things men do in order to have a chance at finding a partner: they have to earn his respect by being a good dancer, or good at languages, or a scientist, or whatever. If they don't, the man will wonder what qualities she has that will match and balance his own. In short, the criteria for a good relationship (and this goes both ways) have changed from being based on sex and social standing to being based on skills and talents.

Schneekugel's point is this:

Regardless of whether your premise is correct, the way you phrase it implies that a woman no longer has inherent value because being born female isn’t thought of in that way anymore. Therefore they now have to earn all their value. This is both false and offensive.

It is offensive because saying someone’s value is entirely linked to their sex is, in itself, sexist and allows people to justify their prejudices without allowing the victims any recourse to demonstrable fact.

It is false because in most healthy, successful relationships (either friendly or romantic) that people on this forum will be familiar with, the people value each other on the basis that they are people whom they like, NOT on a strict set of criteria which must be met. While it is true that some people do have certain requirements of their partners which they don’t require of their friends, this does not take away from the fact that one of the main qualities they look for in anybody is someone they respect and value for being themselves.

Now, let’s get back to the discussion at hand in a calm and respectful manner. We don't need any more fighting or the mods will lock an otherwise interesting thread. Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I didn't lose manners or temper. I'm being insulted, again and again, and what I basically do is to state in my answer 'ok, more insults, I skip to next paragrahs'. However, you feel the need to address to me to ask for calm. To me, not to the person who insulted me. So... WTF???? What???



I'm sorry, but you missed the point completely. What I'm saying is exactly the opposite. Value is not linked to sex anymore, so it's up to you as individual to show which is your value.



Yeap. Of course. For being themselves. No economical status, no professional success, not any of those involved. Just for being themselves.

Well, whatever, as you like. Not gonna start again another debate.



So you tell me, who is the one who has been repeteadly insulted, to get back to the discussion in a calm a respectful manner???? You tell me! !! !

Do I quote what has been told to me in this page?



But you tell me, to me, to get back to the discussion in a calm a respectful manner. When I didn't answer a f*****g single one of those insult in a irrespectuful manner. Even when they deserved.

Oh, I said the f word!! ! Sorry!! ! I have been insulted but, I said the f word!! !! !

Honestly, do whatever you want, you're free. But don't try to sell me the 'moderator' attitude because it's BS.

Greb is right on this but this is not the reality of things today.


The reality of things today that women still have the option of being respected and valued just for being female.


A jobless man = zero value.

A jobless woman = has the option to become a mother/housewife to be very valued by society.

A relatively attractive man with low-paid job = not seen a valuable marriage material.

A relatively attractive young woman with low-paid job = Seen as a catch no matter of the salary!

Only one exception that makes a woman zero value if she's staying at home, and super super lazy and extremely not taking care of herself - but that's a rare case!

And oh please, don't tell me stay-at-home dads, or "this is not the case in the west, you middle eastern".

According to wiki: " The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that less than 1% of fathers are stay-at-home dads, even though women make up 45% of the workforce" ---> This is in AUSTRALIA, one of the most liberal and advanced Western civilizations.

Human civilizations, Middle-Eastern, Eastern, Western all have this in common: They are founded on hypergamy principles.

" I want a man wealthier, taller than, stronger than, older than me, smarter than me, more social than me...etc" - are things you often hear from women and it's very very rare to hear something similar from men. In contrast may say things like "I want her younger, I want her less experienced, thinner, shorter...etc" (but men are less obsessed in being "hypergamized" than women exercising hypergamy standards).

Yeap. You're absolutely right. I was talking about how things are supposed to be, though I failed to express it properly. Women still defend their classical status, where they have an added value, as women, while claiming for equality, where everybody should have the same 'base value', independent of sex (or race or whatever other consideration besides being human, by the way), and from there on, to show his or her value as individual. And this is a double standard.

Or maybe women just want a nice guy.

It's addressed to both of you. I'm not siding with anyone, just trying to clarify what each of your points are and restore some peace between you..



No, actually I got it right. This is exactly what I thought you meant, and what I was trying to convey.



The total value of a person to society is based on a number of things, but the point I think she is making is that she feels people do have intrinsic value, independent of income or professional success. Obviously I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of what she means, and if that is so then I'm open to correction.


As I said, I was addressing both of you and not taking sides. Who said what to whom isn't really the point.

Hmm. In today's society, the women can pick and choose men in the same way that men can pick and choose women. Does that offset the imbalance? For example, the bias in the workplace is towards men. Could there be a scenario where women have to work harder to get jobs in order to prove their worth to men, but the men, while having an easier time getting a job, have to work harder in other ways to prove their worth to women?

A thread that lasts for 23 pages might be a sign as to why women don't like nice guys: THEY DON'T GET TO THE FREAKING POINT. Consider that women get approached all the time. If you can't sum up an idea in a few thoughts, you don't know what you are talking about. Whether that's a "fact" or not is completely irrelevant; its real life. Life is not a WrongPlanet thread.

Also, if women are really this bad, then maybe you shouldn't be approaching a species of humanoid so foul and vicious.

This thread is 23 pages long because there are some members having pointless ego reactions and dragging it out that far.

I daresay it's the pointless ego reactions driving women off IRL too.

Assuming only guys have contributed to those 23 pages? Only self-professed nice guys? So if I sum up an idea in a few thoughts it means I know what I'm talking about otherwise I don't? I don't really understand the purpose of your comment.

Although it's true there hasn't been a lot of progress. And there have been some great and concise posts too, which have not been answered so far.

Well, good point... except.... mmm.... entering this thread is frakking volonteer. Nobody approaches you and say 'hey, look at it, hey, look at it, why don't you look at it?'. This is a private space, and it's your own decission to click in the link and enter.

Besides that, this is debate thread. And I don't see the problem in a 23 pages debate thread. How should it be? a couple of pages is enough? Or even better, a twitter message? It looks like some people in the internet generation have problems reading anything longer than a dozen paragraphs.



That's not exactly true. One of the things that those reports men vs women salaries doesn't say it that salaries for both genders that have entered the workmarket are quite similar.

Why is that reports don't show this? Well, they don't use to strate by age. So old women generation that have a worse CV are included, and women that had children and decided to focus on them (decreasing their future income evolution) are included too. Together. But if you take new generations before having children (or after having children for women that decide to keep focusing in their careeer in the same degree, though this would be very difficult to sample), you have similar incomes.

You have here, for example, an article about the subject: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html But you won't hear of it You will keep hearing how women are less paid that men, because this is the 'politically correct statement'. Is reality bothers the statistics, f**k reality.

There's a lot of manipulation about men-women. For example, the rape statistics, they are highly manipulated. Yeap. Rape. Manipulated. To put an example, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) by the CDC, Centers for Disease Control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_fo ... Prevention states that 21 million women have been female victims of rape



While only 1.5 million men were male victims of rape...



Though, wait... women that were penetrated by force were raped, while men that were forced to penetrate... oops, they're were NOT raped. So they won't appear in this rape statistics unless you check the table. But most of people don't check the tables, they just read the headlines.

There was a case, in Canada, I don't remember where's the link right now, where after including men in domestic violence surveys and seeing that statistics were showing a really high women-on-men violence, the statistics typification was changed too to get it back to the politically correct 'no balanced' mode.

Why is all this so manipulated? Because it's not equality what is looked for, but privileges.

Last edited by Greb on 31 Jul 2013, 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm talking about summing up your thoughts IN REAL LIFE. Not on here. Anyone can sound smart on the Internet because you don't have to know what you are talking about. Sum up your feelings (Your feelings, not your facts, you do have feelings, right?) V E R B A L L Y and if you can't do that, then work on it. Work on saying it out loud.

Sorry? And why are you stating that I'm not clear and I don't sum up my thoughts in real life? Do you f*****g know me in real life? What s**t is this?

Sorry Greb; I thought you wanted to improve your social skills. Guess you just want to feel sorry for yourself and whine about injustice. My sincere apologies. Continue torturing yourself.