Women and 'sensitive' men
- Thread starter DoW Lowen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bravo DoW Lowen. Bravo.
I personally think this is one of the finest pieces of writing I've read in a forum. I have to stand by you and agree.
And yes, Lowen used generaliations. ZOMG GENERALIZAIONS!!!
Whatever, get over it.
You can't blame someone for using generalizations. If there weren't enough people to fit the mold, the stereotype wouldn't exist.
That, and typing out every exception to the rule would take lifetimes, and fail to get the point across.
I had a rather shocking moment a few weeks back. My girlfriend of 2 1/2 years and I took a trip to California, and we brought along my sister and her boyfriend. (And please note, I'm very serious about this girl, I bought an engagement ring and am planning to propose in a couple of months. My sisters boyfrind is a guy I knew from highschool, but we never got along AT ALL. I don't like him, but my sister does, and he treats her well enough that I can't complain.)
Anyways, we were walking down to the beach and going shopping, etc.
My girlfriend kept suggesting we go do this, we go do that, we go do whatever.
But I kept turning down her ideas because I either wasn't interested, or I just didn't like the idea. But my sisters boyfriend proposed most of those same ideas a short while later, and I AGREED WITH HIM. I didn't even realize what I'd been doing all day. My girlfriend called me on it. I was automatically taking the word of the nearest male over the word of my own soon-to-be-fiance.
While I may not agree with Lowen 100%, the general points were spot on. I'm not offended at all, in fact I believe the people most offended by this are most likely defined within it, and don't want to admit the possibility that Lowen is right at some level. Which only goes to justify the point that man are egocentric, as your ego has been attacked and now you're hurt.
BAWWWWWW!!
WHo cares.
If it doesn't apply to you, you're either an amazing exception or not self-aware.
If it does, I'm glad that there are males out there that can admit their flaws and move on.
I personally think this is one of the finest pieces of writing I've read in a forum. I have to stand by you and agree.
And yes, Lowen used generaliations. ZOMG GENERALIZAIONS!!!
Whatever, get over it.
You can't blame someone for using generalizations. If there weren't enough people to fit the mold, the stereotype wouldn't exist.
That, and typing out every exception to the rule would take lifetimes, and fail to get the point across.
I had a rather shocking moment a few weeks back. My girlfriend of 2 1/2 years and I took a trip to California, and we brought along my sister and her boyfriend. (And please note, I'm very serious about this girl, I bought an engagement ring and am planning to propose in a couple of months. My sisters boyfrind is a guy I knew from highschool, but we never got along AT ALL. I don't like him, but my sister does, and he treats her well enough that I can't complain.)
Anyways, we were walking down to the beach and going shopping, etc.
My girlfriend kept suggesting we go do this, we go do that, we go do whatever.
But I kept turning down her ideas because I either wasn't interested, or I just didn't like the idea. But my sisters boyfriend proposed most of those same ideas a short while later, and I AGREED WITH HIM. I didn't even realize what I'd been doing all day. My girlfriend called me on it. I was automatically taking the word of the nearest male over the word of my own soon-to-be-fiance.
While I may not agree with Lowen 100%, the general points were spot on. I'm not offended at all, in fact I believe the people most offended by this are most likely defined within it, and don't want to admit the possibility that Lowen is right at some level. Which only goes to justify the point that man are egocentric, as your ego has been attacked and now you're hurt.
BAWWWWWW!!
WHo cares.
If it doesn't apply to you, you're either an amazing exception or not self-aware.
If it does, I'm glad that there are males out there that can admit their flaws and move on.
To be honest, I'd consider it pretty much 50/50 in terms of whether I'd talk to a girl or guy in an emotional way. I'd care much more if one of my female friends thought I wasn't being masculine enough, probably because I want women to view me as attractive. Around my male-friends I usually consider myself less masculine due to the fact I was already thin and lost a lot of weight I am struggling to build once more.
You make a lot of valid points for the average guy, but in a forum of gamers and geeks where half the guys here would have gone through some kind of bullying involving their masculinity, the definition of 'well-adjusted' becomes a little murky. I used to have very little regard for my masculinity and was praised for not worrying about my masculinity. Due to recent events in my life, however, I worried a lot about my masculinity and took it to the other extreme where my health was declining in an attempt to 'out-man' every other guy in the world.
I agree this is a very good guideline to understanding a lot of men, but viewing it as gospel is a bad idea.
You make a lot of valid points for the average guy, but in a forum of gamers and geeks where half the guys here would have gone through some kind of bullying involving their masculinity, the definition of 'well-adjusted' becomes a little murky. I used to have very little regard for my masculinity and was praised for not worrying about my masculinity. Due to recent events in my life, however, I worried a lot about my masculinity and took it to the other extreme where my health was declining in an attempt to 'out-man' every other guy in the world.
I agree this is a very good guideline to understanding a lot of men, but viewing it as gospel is a bad idea.
Amen!Gorbek said:
ON TOPIC!
As already said, you are generalising a terrific amount!
I am a niceguy, I do come across as a bit of a doormat sometimes and can be seen as quite feminine by many.
However, contarary to what you believe, I am in a stable relationship with someone who is attracted to me both physically and intellectually and most girls I am friends with are hate what you call "real men".
And who the hell are you? Why should I take your claims as true? Are you a relationship expert with a background in psychology and years of experience?
Because if you're not then you're just a voice on the internet who thinks they know everything, which I utterly despise. If you're going to write an article that deals with the very complex psyche of men and women as well as relationship advice, you need to back it up with actual proof and evidence that your claims are true.
Otherwise people will not take you seriously and the ones that do gulp up your post as fact need to become more adept in the area of critical thinking. I also find your post is very biased in regards to how you worded this--->
"Women I'm sure most of you have encountered this. The guy you know, he is popular among his friends, he is masculine, probably has a bit of a bad boy streak to him and he rarely seems like the sensitive type. But when he is around you or a woman, he is quite the teddy bear. He is open and honest and bares his soul to you. How endearing...
Allow me to shed some light on these types. They are chauvinistic and do not think very much of you, worse off they probably are not aware of it. The god honest truth, and whether a fellow male out there will admittedly stand by me or not - it's true."
The sarcasm and hostile vocabulary you used makes it seem like you may have had a conflict with one of these types. If this is true, please take out your emotions somewhere else.
Because if you're not then you're just a voice on the internet who thinks they know everything, which I utterly despise. If you're going to write an article that deals with the very complex psyche of men and women as well as relationship advice, you need to back it up with actual proof and evidence that your claims are true.
Otherwise people will not take you seriously and the ones that do gulp up your post as fact need to become more adept in the area of critical thinking. I also find your post is very biased in regards to how you worded this--->
"Women I'm sure most of you have encountered this. The guy you know, he is popular among his friends, he is masculine, probably has a bit of a bad boy streak to him and he rarely seems like the sensitive type. But when he is around you or a woman, he is quite the teddy bear. He is open and honest and bares his soul to you. How endearing...
Allow me to shed some light on these types. They are chauvinistic and do not think very much of you, worse off they probably are not aware of it. The god honest truth, and whether a fellow male out there will admittedly stand by me or not - it's true."
The sarcasm and hostile vocabulary you used makes it seem like you may have had a conflict with one of these types. If this is true, please take out your emotions somewhere else.
I'm so glad I get to use the following phrase, thus lending some form of use to my sociology classes:
Your entire presumption is based in a heteronormative worldview. Yay for me.
But, more broadly, here's the issue:
You begin with an assumption for how "men" act, and then proceed to prove your point through a simple recitation of that core belief. Even ignoring your obvious "no true Scotsman" fallacy (in which you posit that a man acts a certain way, and any deviation would render someone "not a real man"), you still don't bring any real evidence not predicated on your initial assumptions.
Your read of the landscape, while perhaps valid, is shaded wildly by your worldview. Instead of rendering an impartial assessment of what's actually happening, you begin with an assumption, and your analysis of other "facts" both stems from and "proves" your original assertion. Circular logic at its best.
And, not for nothing, but your logic of "men don't respect women, and so are able to open up to them/be nice guys/show sensitivity, ect" cuts both ways. If what you say is true, wouldn't it be just as likely that because men don't respect women, they feel no need to get a woman's input, don't open up to them at all (because they don't want to show weakness toward potential mates), and instead only open up to their male friends?
You're going over the well-trodden ground of "why do women like bad boys" and doing so without having looked at really *any* of the sociological or psychological research, and that makes you a bit of a hack. Anecdotes, while amusing, cannot count as evidence for the kind of generalization you want to make. If "nice guys finish last" there should be no nice guys after a few generations, whereas evolutionary psychologists now believe that the difference is in the stage of a woman's life (and fertility cycle) she's in. "Bad boys" are more successful in adolescence and early adulthood. "Nice guys" (to use phrases I personally abhor) are more successful in terms of marriage and settling down in families.
Admittedly, many evolutionary psychologists also admit that the optimum solution for a woman, then, would be to procreate with the "bad boy" (for his genes), but settle down with the "nice guy" (for his child rearing). This, if she were successful, would get the nice guy to raise the jerk's kids, which would mean he finishes last, but paternity tests are brilliant things.
Finally, to address the entire "nice guy" vs. "bad boy" issue:
Why do we assume that this is the only salient detail of the choice between dating two individual men? If two men were perfectly equivalent in all other ways (physical attractiveness, intelligence, humor, ect.) do we really believe that a woman would decide to date the "bad boy" 100% of the time? Or, are we accepting that nice guys (like Avis) are second best, so they try harder? If that's true, then don't talk about the divide in terms of "nice guys" and "bad boys"; if it's about physical looks, talk about "ugly" versus "Adonis".
If I were to posit a theory, it would be that the so-called "bad boys" are that way simply because they are attractive enough to not have to put as much effort into getting girls. The "bad boys" don't get girls because they're bad, they're bad because they don't have to be nice to get girls. Nice guys are less attractive (for whatever reason) and thus have to put more effort into getting girls. Aloofness itself isn't attractive, rather one has to be attractive to be aloof.
I get that it's more pleasant (given that most men on sites like this would put themselves more squarely in the "nice" grouping) to believe the factors to be either something outside of our control, or even the girls simply being wrong about their choices, but there's no evidence beyond bare speculation to support that assumption.
Your entire presumption is based in a heteronormative worldview. Yay for me.
But, more broadly, here's the issue:
You begin with an assumption for how "men" act, and then proceed to prove your point through a simple recitation of that core belief. Even ignoring your obvious "no true Scotsman" fallacy (in which you posit that a man acts a certain way, and any deviation would render someone "not a real man"), you still don't bring any real evidence not predicated on your initial assumptions.
Your read of the landscape, while perhaps valid, is shaded wildly by your worldview. Instead of rendering an impartial assessment of what's actually happening, you begin with an assumption, and your analysis of other "facts" both stems from and "proves" your original assertion. Circular logic at its best.
And, not for nothing, but your logic of "men don't respect women, and so are able to open up to them/be nice guys/show sensitivity, ect" cuts both ways. If what you say is true, wouldn't it be just as likely that because men don't respect women, they feel no need to get a woman's input, don't open up to them at all (because they don't want to show weakness toward potential mates), and instead only open up to their male friends?
You're going over the well-trodden ground of "why do women like bad boys" and doing so without having looked at really *any* of the sociological or psychological research, and that makes you a bit of a hack. Anecdotes, while amusing, cannot count as evidence for the kind of generalization you want to make. If "nice guys finish last" there should be no nice guys after a few generations, whereas evolutionary psychologists now believe that the difference is in the stage of a woman's life (and fertility cycle) she's in. "Bad boys" are more successful in adolescence and early adulthood. "Nice guys" (to use phrases I personally abhor) are more successful in terms of marriage and settling down in families.
Admittedly, many evolutionary psychologists also admit that the optimum solution for a woman, then, would be to procreate with the "bad boy" (for his genes), but settle down with the "nice guy" (for his child rearing). This, if she were successful, would get the nice guy to raise the jerk's kids, which would mean he finishes last, but paternity tests are brilliant things.
Finally, to address the entire "nice guy" vs. "bad boy" issue:
Why do we assume that this is the only salient detail of the choice between dating two individual men? If two men were perfectly equivalent in all other ways (physical attractiveness, intelligence, humor, ect.) do we really believe that a woman would decide to date the "bad boy" 100% of the time? Or, are we accepting that nice guys (like Avis) are second best, so they try harder? If that's true, then don't talk about the divide in terms of "nice guys" and "bad boys"; if it's about physical looks, talk about "ugly" versus "Adonis".
If I were to posit a theory, it would be that the so-called "bad boys" are that way simply because they are attractive enough to not have to put as much effort into getting girls. The "bad boys" don't get girls because they're bad, they're bad because they don't have to be nice to get girls. Nice guys are less attractive (for whatever reason) and thus have to put more effort into getting girls. Aloofness itself isn't attractive, rather one has to be attractive to be aloof.
I get that it's more pleasant (given that most men on sites like this would put themselves more squarely in the "nice" grouping) to believe the factors to be either something outside of our control, or even the girls simply being wrong about their choices, but there's no evidence beyond bare speculation to support that assumption.
I am dead inside, and my only goal is to procreate. Life is good, and soon oblivion will come from me. But I am nice to people until they start acting like jerks so I suppose that makes me a nice guy.
I stopped at "Men are egotistic and power hungery"
I beg to differ. I'm the sensitive type without any "bad boy" streak. That's why a lot of people call me a pussy, but, I really don't care.
I'm much more open to women than I am to men. Hell, I only have 2 guy friends and 1 of them is gay.
Although, you did get one thing right. I don't have a girlfriend at the moment and I do wonder why I can be so nice yet they still only look at me as a friend but go for the asshole jock douchebag who treats them like shit.
I actually am one of the few straight guys who would prefer a night out with the girls rather than a "dude's night out" mainly because I'm a vegetarian who doesn't drink so the whole bar scene and me don't mesh well together.
I beg to differ. I'm the sensitive type without any "bad boy" streak. That's why a lot of people call me a pussy, but, I really don't care.
I'm much more open to women than I am to men. Hell, I only have 2 guy friends and 1 of them is gay.
Although, you did get one thing right. I don't have a girlfriend at the moment and I do wonder why I can be so nice yet they still only look at me as a friend but go for the asshole jock douchebag who treats them like shit.
I actually am one of the few straight guys who would prefer a night out with the girls rather than a "dude's night out" mainly because I'm a vegetarian who doesn't drink so the whole bar scene and me don't mesh well together.
As a guide to a specific type of guy, the OP has merit. If he acts like a tough guy around his friends, but only "really opens up" to you, he is probably just telling you what you want to hear. If he is super insecure about his reputation, but lets you judge him all the time, he probably doesn't care what you think.
A genuinely sensitive, nice boy doesn't have these problems. He will be honest with his male friends, his female friends, and his girlfriend, because he actually cares what they think. He doesn't need to worry about whether he's a bad boy or effeminate or whatever, because he's already interesting to the opposite sex.
Or at least it seems to work out pretty well for me.
A genuinely sensitive, nice boy doesn't have these problems. He will be honest with his male friends, his female friends, and his girlfriend, because he actually cares what they think. He doesn't need to worry about whether he's a bad boy or effeminate or whatever, because he's already interesting to the opposite sex.
Or at least it seems to work out pretty well for me.
Neat anectode, but this really proves nothing at all. If your sister's boyfriend had instead been, say, a close male friend, would you have immediately agreed to do everything he suggested? I seriously think this had more to do with your desire to be polite (or at least to avoid being antagonistic).Rett Silvari said:
Which "general points" were spot on, exactly?
Men are egocentric, power hungry and seek to be dominant? This may be the case for you and your acquaintences, but I personally have never come across it, and let's face it, your anecdotal evidence is only as valid as mine.
Nice guys finish last? As has been addressed several times already in this thread, this is utter nonsense. I won't bother repeating it.
The male species are great performers? Guess what? This is true for the entire human race. Everyone acts according to their current social context.
With a woman they are not afraid to appear vulnerable? Probably true that men will expose their emotions more readily to the woman they are with at the time, but the same is true for women with their men.
A lot of men don't value a woman's opinion? Not once have I felt my opinion being slighted by a man based on my sex. Not once in my entire life. If you agree with this, well then, I'm glad I don't know you.
Of course everyone's a little sexist. That's everyone, not just men. But really, the OP has it all wrong.
To be honest, what he says is of little concequence to me.
It was formulated nicely. The grammar was quite good. It was a nice read. All in all, you're a boon for the internet. Regardless what the post was about.
I'm sure everyone agrees on that.
And I think you're slightly frustrated, but at least you make your point come across.
It was formulated nicely. The grammar was quite good. It was a nice read. All in all, you're a boon for the internet. Regardless what the post was about.
I'm sure everyone agrees on that.
And I think you're slightly frustrated, but at least you make your point come across.
Ok, I'll admit to you making a valid point about how women are wired, but the way we will get rid of this wiring is gradual evolution over thousends of generations and not by reallizing now and doing what you sugest cause at this era in time your sugestion would A: require a massive cultural shift big enough to affect the subconcious and B: unless this happens just be like pissing in the wind. and to the women, what you want and what you say you want are completly differant things, this is why women will reject the nice guys who will care for them and be there for them and generaly kiss their asses but will date the jerks who can create the magical gut feeling know as atraction, if there's no atraction there's no chance and being nice doesn't create atraction.Furburt said:
QED. end of disscusions. full stop.
Interesting conjecture, I'd like to see your research and support.DoW Lowen said:
That being said, I do see some truth to your post.. But I would question as to whether the clear black/white lines you draw are actually as well defined as you seem to think they are.
I know plenty of men who are legitimately sensitive and open-hearted towards both males and females. So from my place in society, your statements don't hold much water. I also come from a place where most of my friends are involved in the same deep touchy-feely program that I'm involved with, so we are not only more open with each other but open outwards to those who are not part of the same background. Now, we may be the exception rather than the rule, but I have yet to see a scientifically supported rule in this thread.
Additionally, who's to say that this situation you describe is necessary anymore? Why continue to support it? Why not move towards a different, perhaps better, social environment? Sure one can understand the need for a heavy-handed male in a primitive society, simply for defense and protection-- but in a society, at least like those in most first world countries- is the heavy-handed meathead actually something to be valued?
I like this thread, though. It really is the foundation for some good discussion... Much better than "Poll: WAO SUX!!"
It's entirely too bad I have to get to work before being able to properly post a mass texting of my own to this sea of letters.
I am what alot of people consider a man to be without being overly masculine. In fact, I have several femenine qualities to myself. I am an Introverted, misanthropic visionary. I want to change the world by my own hand. I am charismatic and motivated. Luckily, this has been enough for me. I value loyalty, integrity and trust above all else. I have several acquaintences but only a few great friends who trust me unconditionally and believe that I will bring them great things in this life. I judge people by people, not by gender. Female and Male mean nothing to me outside of sex and procreation. Love, for me is sacred and I cannot even bear the idea of myself and casual sex. I want it to be grand and beautiful and will have it no less.
I love people for themselves while I hate them for society. I have been spurned by one of your alpha males but cannot say, through the grey tint of my misanthropy, that all males are like that. One who speaks of intellectual awareness through generalizations is doomed to be incorrect. Generalizations cannot hold because people, although being one with each other, are very much individual through bodily perception. I trust my friends with alot. That is all it takes to earn my love: Trust.
I don't let people fall.
There, theory shattered through generalization
I am what alot of people consider a man to be without being overly masculine. In fact, I have several femenine qualities to myself. I am an Introverted, misanthropic visionary. I want to change the world by my own hand. I am charismatic and motivated. Luckily, this has been enough for me. I value loyalty, integrity and trust above all else. I have several acquaintences but only a few great friends who trust me unconditionally and believe that I will bring them great things in this life. I judge people by people, not by gender. Female and Male mean nothing to me outside of sex and procreation. Love, for me is sacred and I cannot even bear the idea of myself and casual sex. I want it to be grand and beautiful and will have it no less.
I love people for themselves while I hate them for society. I have been spurned by one of your alpha males but cannot say, through the grey tint of my misanthropy, that all males are like that. One who speaks of intellectual awareness through generalizations is doomed to be incorrect. Generalizations cannot hold because people, although being one with each other, are very much individual through bodily perception. I trust my friends with alot. That is all it takes to earn my love: Trust.
I don't let people fall.
There, theory shattered through generalization
That is my second definition, and if it were to be determined for say a male sport, I would use that one. But for the title of "Man" I use mine.Nomadic said:
What the hell is True Love?
I assume you mean the storybook "Only one person in the world for me, till the end of eternity, this is the perfect person" love that is romanticised and proliferated around in every fairytale and mass media. But do you ACTUALLY think it's real?
Ok, say it is real. You find the one for you. They are everything you are looking for, and you are the same for them. It's magical, it's a miracle. You get married, you start living your life together perfectly.........and your true love dies by accident/murder/fire/what have you.......what next?
You see, by the definition of true love people like to bandy around, THAT'S IT! That was your ONE AND ONLY SHOT at happiness. You couldn't POSSIBLY find another, because THEY wouldn't be your true love, would they?
Love is what you make of it. No love is 'purer' or 'truer' than the next one, it's hard work and realizing that you are the best that your partner could get and that they are the best you can get, and you figure it out at the same time. Which is why, as someone pointed out above, that the majority of life-partners are usually a car-drive away from eachother. The world has 6.7 BILLION people, and you think just ONE of those is meant for you forever and always?
Keep thinking.
I assume you mean the storybook "Only one person in the world for me, till the end of eternity, this is the perfect person" love that is romanticised and proliferated around in every fairytale and mass media. But do you ACTUALLY think it's real?
Ok, say it is real. You find the one for you. They are everything you are looking for, and you are the same for them. It's magical, it's a miracle. You get married, you start living your life together perfectly.........and your true love dies by accident/murder/fire/what have you.......what next?
You see, by the definition of true love people like to bandy around, THAT'S IT! That was your ONE AND ONLY SHOT at happiness. You couldn't POSSIBLY find another, because THEY wouldn't be your true love, would they?
Love is what you make of it. No love is 'purer' or 'truer' than the next one, it's hard work and realizing that you are the best that your partner could get and that they are the best you can get, and you figure it out at the same time. Which is why, as someone pointed out above, that the majority of life-partners are usually a car-drive away from eachother. The world has 6.7 BILLION people, and you think just ONE of those is meant for you forever and always?
Keep thinking.