Criticisms of Feminism

[Edgy Opinions]

You're still refusing to explain your position, I don't really consider you to be part of the discussion. I have no idea how the hell you think feminism works so I can gain no information from your appraisal of it.

This explains my position on how society is sexist against women quite neatly: https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

Patriarchy is different from misandry in that misandry is not institutionalized by women - in the context of ideologically/functionally women-dominated institutions that have a huge amount of structural power in the overall organization of society - as a means of deriving undue privilege on the disadvantage of all men and boys.

[Des-Bal]

This explains my position on how society is sexist against women quite neatly: https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

Patriarchy is different from misandry in that misandry is not institutionalized by women - in the context of ideologically/functionally women-dominated institutions that have a huge amount of structural power in the overall organization of society - as a means of deriving undue privilege on the disadvantage of all men and boys.

If someone else states your position perfectly you don't have enough original thoughts. You sound like someone defending the ZOG machine against accusations of anti-semitism.

[Edgy Opinions]

If someone else states your position perfectly you don't have enough original thoughts. You sound like someone defending the ZOG machine against accusations of anti-semitism.

I could make a case for the amount of influence I believe patriarchy had in my lived experience as a dmab non-binary trans person to narrate my personal impression of it, but NSG is certainly not an appropriate place for that, and I'd get no outcome from sharing it with people on this very thread, so it'd be a tiresome, fruitless exercise.

So far, what I presented is entirely valid in describing my overall ideology.

[Ostroeuropa]

You're still refusing to explain your position, I don't really consider you to be part of the discussion. I have no idea how the hell you think feminism works so I can gain no information from your appraisal of it.

This explains my position on how society is sexist against women quite neatly: https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

Patriarchy is different from misandry in that misandry is not institutionalized by women - in the context of ideologically/functionally women-dominated institutions that have a huge amount of structural power in the overall organization of society - as a means of deriving undue privilege on the disadvantage of all men and boys.

How do you know misandry is not institutionalized by women?

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you say that Susurreses and Potenco were feminists, or not.
Because i've pointed out why their behaviour and ideology is riddled with problems.

Would you say any gynocentrists are feminists, or must a feminist be neutral and take a multi-lens approach to the situation?

I have not seen Susurreses recently. Potenco has said things contrary to feminism, namely belittling oppression of males and derogatory remarks. While I do not support those, the gist of what they have posted is feminist.

Should, and is, multi-lensed. That being said, it should not be fifty fifty. There should be a focus on women's issues, and groups such as the good men foundation should be treated as allies and focus on men's issues. Two branches, both with the same goal.

Why should it not be fifty fifty?
Surely each issue you address should be dealt with in a manner that takes into account all genders.
Why should there be a focus on womens issues?

[Edgy Opinions]

How do you know misandry is not institutionalized by women?

"In the context of ideologically/functionally women-dominated institutions that have a huge amount of structural power in the overall organization of society"

Something that was once patriarchal, to be made "matriarchal", would need a deep ideological redirect. I see no such example in my society.

Women might be complicit with patriarchal traditionalism in ways that oppress men - and, most specially, some men -, but there is no single institution controlled by women to subjugate all men with relevant societal power that I'm aware of in capitalist societies.

[Comrade Anders Blakewood]

I have not seen Susurreses recently. Potenco has said things contrary to feminism, namely belittling oppression of males and derogatory remarks. While I do not support those, the gist of what they have posted is feminist.

Should, and is, multi-lensed. That being said, it should not be fifty fifty. There should be a focus on women's issues, and groups such as the good men foundation should be treated as allies and focus on men's issues. Two branches, both with the same goal.

Why should it not be fifty fifty?
Surely each issue you address should be dealt with in a manner that takes into account all genders.
Why should there be a focus on womens issues?

You, win this thread.

[Earth Empire]

"In modern society, a man who displays affection, respect and loyalty to a woman, is considered a "pussy" and rejected as weak (and usually end up on the losing end)."

Lol what? Treating the woman you love with respect and loyalty is what modern society stresses. You're a douche if you don't...

[Icelandic Mafia]

What the hell is wrong with treating women equally, and granting them equal rights? I feel that a large chunk of people equate feminism with misandry. And, that's fucking foolish.

[Ostroeuropa]

What the hell is wrong with treating women equally, and granting them equal rights? I feel that a large chunk of people equate feminism with misandry. And, that's fucking foolish.

Well, if they don't treat you equally, it somewhat undermines the entire endeavor doesn't it.

How do you know misandry is not institutionalized by women?

"In the context of ideologically/functionally women-dominated institutions that have a huge amount of structural power in the overall organization of society"

Something that was once patriarchal, to be made "matriarchal", would need a deep ideological redirect. I see no such example in my society.

Women might be complicit with patriarchal traditionalism in ways that oppress men - and, most specially, some men -, but there is no single institution controlled by women to subjugate all men with relevant societal power that I'm aware of in capitalist societies.

You think memes are confined to institutions. Why?

(And yes, i've given up on just assuming why people believe these things. I have to ask. Because, wtf.)
Also, "Patriarchal" includes a bunch of benefits for women in addition to drawbacks.
For it to become "Matriarchal" would merely require the elimination of the drawbacks and stalwart defence of privilege.
Which, you know.
Happened.

If the UK finally abolishes womens prisons which some womens groups are demanding and the papers take seriously, the truth will be thus.

I was abused regularly by my ex girlfriend.
I did not report her.
If I had, I am more likely to have gone to jail than she is if she counter claimed. (As an abuser would.) http://wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/file ... pdf?repost
(Males who are victims of abuse and report their partner are more likely to be arrested as a result of that than their partner is.)
If I she did not, I am very unlikely to have succeeded in prosecuting her. (Usual problems + female privilege / I am perceived as male.)
That's assuming it even got that far.
Had I succeeded in the aftermath of womens prisons being abolished, she wouldn't have gone to jail.

A system where a male is more likely to go to jail for reporting his abusive partner to the police than she is (In fact, she cannot go to jail.)
Is a fucking matriarchy.
I don't care what you tell me otherwise.
And it's the direct result of gynocentric people constantly demanding more privilege for females and ignoring males

[Edgy Opinions]

Why should it not be fifty fifty?
Surely each issue you address should be dealt with in a manner that takes into account all genders.
Why should there be a focus on womens issues?

At the risk of sounding like Potenco...

There is a lack of belief that any change can be made while there is still institutional control of some gender superstructure ideology over people.

Surely it's not for the structural and institutional benefit of cis women that we see right-wing arguments against trans people, for example. In fact, many lines of feminism accuse transphobia of negating their diversity under a logic that is historically to naturalize and normalize very anti-woman attitudes, dividing a group that might be a revolutionary front against oppression, and cooperating with attempts to further police people's gender.

The oppression of women, non-cis people, non-white people and non-Western cultures are ones recognizable set up as power structures alongside class struggle in capitalism. Whatever men suffer is another kind of debate, and an attempt to equalize how both are perpetuated and practiced is foolish and infantile liberalism, coming from people blinded by their societies' pretensions of offering a bourgeois "representative democracy" while reproducing further bourgeois values.

True egalitarianism cannot be achieved when one group is both privileged overall in many ways AND it holds the control of several institutions, while not removing the ideology of this former control by the roots from society. Their line of feminism is to eliminate this specific kind as a priority. (I think it's a foolish exercise when it's not also anti-capitalist, offering a critical perspective under such gaze.)

People don't touch the men's movement because 1. it's not theirs to protagonize 2. it's not the same kind of sexism thus it can't be addressed by the same movement (and it really isn't, sorry not sorry) 3. women's movement and men's movement "não se dão" (they can't really coexist in a single space with full friendship and trust) 4. arguably, many things you and TJ argued (but not all) about the movement as it is in the US (and the ideology it projects) are grounded in observable truth

And they really have no responsibility of doing so, just as we don't have to add numbers to feminism to not be misogynists, but solely not support misogyny in all of its forms, listen to people who deal with it and not try to silence them. (Tip: calling them fakes, closet sexists, oppressors or supremacists for disagreeing with you or doing different things from different perspectives is silencing. Just like you don't like to be silenced about your own issues, of which's silencing I will not agree with, either.)

[Edgy Opinions]

-snip-

Oh Ostro, stop.

You and me both know I'm against the whole system.

Against institutions where people can control others through the power of authority and hierarchy as a whole.

Against an official support for a given ideology or moral system.

Against the whole concept of crime as we understand it, and doubtlessly one such that enables bias.

As for matriarchy, you will have to source your claims to actual Sociology, and not just what you can construct gathering information about an application of stuff that isn't meant to diminish all males, and, you guessed it, don't actually make you internalize prejudices of inferiority because someone is socialized with and/or identifies with the male gender.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why should it not be fifty fifty?
Surely each issue you address should be dealt with in a manner that takes into account all genders.
Why should there be a focus on womens issues?

At the risk of sounding like Potenco...

There is a lack of belief that any change can be made while there is still institutional control of some gender superstructure ideology over people.

Surely it's not for the structural and institutional benefit of cis women that we see right-wing arguments against trans people, for example. In fact, many lines of feminism accuse transphobia of negating their diversity under a logic that is historically to naturalize and normalize very anti-woman attitudes, dividing a group that might be a revolutionary front against oppression, and cooperating with attempts to further police people's gender.

The oppression of women, non-cis people, non-white people and non-Western cultures are ones recognizable set up as power structures alongside class struggle in capitalism. Whatever men suffer is another kind of debate, and an attempt to equalize how both are perpetuated and practiced is foolish and infantile liberalism, coming from people blinded by their societies' pretensions of offering a bourgeois "representative democracy" while reproducing further bourgeois values.

True egalitarianism cannot be achieved when one group is both privileged overall in many ways AND it holds the control of several institutions, while not removing the ideology of this former control by the roots from society. Their line of feminism is to eliminate this specific kind as a priority. (I think it's a foolish exercise when it's not also anti-capitalist, offering a critical perspective under such gaze.)

People don't touch the men's movement because 1. it's not theirs to protagonize 2. it's not the same kind of sexism thus it can't be addressed by the same movement (and it really isn't, sorry not sorry) 3. women's movement and men's movement "não se dão" (they can't really coexist in a single space with full friendship and trust) 4. arguably, many things you and TJ argued (but not all) about the movement as it is in the US (and the ideology it projects) are grounded in observable truth

And they really have no responsibility of doing so, just as we don't have to add numbers to feminism to not be misogynists, but solely not support misogyny in all of its forms, listen to people who deal with it and not try to silence them. (Tip: calling them fakes, closet sexists, oppressors or supremacists for disagreeing with you or doing different things from different perspectives is silencing. Just like you don't like to be silenced about your own issues, of which's silencing I will not agree with, either.)

Can you actually prove that women are in a worse position than men.
Especially in the west.
I doubt it.

[Ostroeuropa]

-snip-

Oh Ostro, stop.

You and me both know I'm against the whole system.

Against institutions where people can control others through the power of authority and hierarchy as a whole.

Against an official support for a given ideology or moral system.

Against the whole concept of crime as we understand it, and doubtlessly one such that enables bias.

As for matriarchy, you will have to source your claims to actual Sociology, and not just what you can construct gathering information about an application of stuff that isn't meant to diminish all males, and, you guessed it, don't actually make you internalize prejudices of inferiority because someone is socialized with and/or identifies with the male gender.

Well I cite the duluth model.
Hows that for you.
Good enough? Seems like they decided to reverse it, doesnt it. I realize i'm getting a little invested now. I'm going to go.

[Edgy Opinions]

Can you actually prove that women are in a worse position than men.
Especially in the west.
I doubt it.

Nice edit, good that you toned down the whole "if you don't agree with me, then it's sexism against men!".

I cited quite a couple instances here, with my older nation (HetRio), of exploitation/violence that have a tendency to be specifically directed against womankind.

You like to generalize your region in Wales, or maybe the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, for an area extending over 3, maybe 4 continents. It's culturally inappropriate, not to mention a discourse used both to feed white supremacist double standards about other peoples AND to dismiss all kinds of anti-sexist commentary.

[Edgy Opinions]

Well I cite the duluth model.
Hows that for you.
Good enough? Seems like they decided to reverse it, doesnt it. I realize i'm getting a little invested now. I'm going to go.

Men being disadvantaged at something doesn't mean a whole ideological reversal of former institutions to make them underprivileged, and certainly doesn't men that being a concerted effort by society.

[Comrade Anders Blakewood]

Men and Women are disadvantaged institutionally, but differently. Please never try to put amounts to or argue this either way, there's no way to objectively do either side justice. Honestly, women do seem like they have more strides before we've hit societal equality, but men still face issues. Does that makes me a Men's Rights Activist? Only as much as it makes me a Women's Rights Activist. It's all very give and take. Women are constantly being told they have to be sexually submissive, are oppressed by pay gaps, and countless other issues. Men are being lied to and oppressed by the same media, telling them they have to feed this absurd and destructive cycle Western Civilization has placed us in. There's no one easy to point the finger at, educate people and be nice about whatever you like to focus on, because being hateful and letting too much passion show through will drive people off and apathy toward our current dilemma is part of the problem. Can we agree on some of what I've said? Also, all humans are disadvantaged by this of all sexual orientations and gender identities, I just wanted to address the "Men have it worse!" "Women have it worse!" stuff from earlier.

[Kelinfort]

I have not seen Susurreses recently. Potenco has said things contrary to feminism, namely belittling oppression of males and derogatory remarks. While I do not support those, the gist of what they have posted is feminist.

Should, and is, multi-lensed. That being said, it should not be fifty fifty. There should be a focus on women's issues, and groups such as the good men foundation should be treated as allies and focus on men's issues. Two branches, both with the same goal.

Why should it not be fifty fifty?
Surely each issue you address should be dealt with in a manner that takes into account all genders.
Why should there be a focus on womens issues?

The minute you do the same is the minute I believe it is possible.

[Shaggai]

A few things for everyone to remember:
-Oppression Olympics is stupid. Don't do it. The privilege/oppression model of society is overly simplistic in many cases, and for the most part it breaks down entirely when gender gets involved. Which isn't to say that some people don't have it better than others, just that the world of gender cannot be divided up into oppressor/oppressed.
-Just because a group focuses on a specific cause doesn't mean that people in said group don't care about other similar causes.
-Unless you give most of your income to the Against Malaria Foundation, you can't say "Well, x is a bigger issue than y, so we can just ignore y".

[Tahar Joblis]

You're still refusing to explain your position, I don't really consider you to be part of the discussion. I have no idea how the hell you think feminism works so I can gain no information from your appraisal of it.

This explains my position on how society is sexist against women quite neatly: https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

That blog defines "patriarchy," implicitly, as a social hierarchy placing one gender above another gender.

It does claim that patriarchy is a conspiracy theory, contrary to its title - a theory of conspiracy among elite "patriarchs" rather than all men, but a conspiracy nonetheless. It also claims (in contradiction to what we actually see in society re: homelessness, prison, etc) that this causes subordinate men to be ranked above subordinate women. In actual reality, the lowest rungs of our society are populated almost exclusively by men, even more dramatically than leadership positions.

This is one of several versions of the word "patriarchy." Some feminists mean to say that all men are complicit in oppressing all women. Some feminists refer to patriarchy as the root of all dualistic thinking, or as being a strictly enforced gender binary.

What is entirely missing from nearly every modern American feminist's analysis of modern American culture (and typically pretending it applies equally well to all societies) is that women are the ones who actually enforce gender roles. Social shaming is the primary instrument for the maintenance of gender roles. Who shames women? Mostly women. (Especially in the case of slut-shaming - men have a more positive view of promiscuity in general and of promiscuous women in particular.) Who shames men? You'd guess other men, but the answer is again women.

Who discriminates based on the interaction between gender and appearance in hiring? The women who dominate HR departments, who selectively hire attractive men and unattractive women. Who expresses strong preferences against having to work under female managers? Mostly women.

Patriarchy is different from misandry in that misandry is not institutionalized by women - in the context of ideologically/functionally women-dominated institutions that have a huge amount of structural power in the overall organization of society - as a means of deriving undue privilege on the disadvantage of all men and boys.

Social services, family courts, the education system... strange as it might seem, even most Republican congressional aides in the US are women.

Women have stayed completely out of a lot of really cruddy jobs. The result is that there are sectors dominated by women - in particular, quite importantly, women occupy significant gatekeeper roles. Women are on the front ranks of the educational system, especially in primary schools; this determines which kids go on the fast track, the slow track, or the prison pipeline. Women make up over 90% of most HR departments, with striking effects. Sexist discrimination by women (misandrist in nature or not - discriminating in favor of attractive men and against unattractive men, for example, is arguably not anti-male, but it is sexist discrimination) has powerful effects that are spread widely throughout society. Institutionalized, if you will.

This is not to say that women control society in entirety. For example, attractive women may be discriminated against in the hiring process, but tend to receive favorable treatment once on the job, eventually earning more (attractiveness correlates quite positively with income for both men and women). However, women are not powerless. Not individually, nor as a class.

[Ostroeuropa]

A good example of why feminist ideologues are dangerous if they don't subscribe to facts, and it merely becomes a tool of womens sexism with which to oppress males:

The doormats have always complained about being in the "friend zone" and made exasperated complaints about women choosing jerks over them.
At some point in recent history we stopped understanding this as anger directed inward at oneself and started interpreting it as an attack on women.
I've seen little evidence of guys playing the nice guy then turning into arseholes when they are rejected.
The type of guy who usually takes on the nice guy role would be too shy, especially around women, to act like that.

I've never seen an actual example where it could be proven that a "nice guy" believed he was entitled to sex. In all of the cases I've seen, the guy was upset about having trouble getting into a relationship, and was accused of feeling entitled to sex, but there was no proof of that.

I think the shaming of "nice guys" is a rationalization attempt. Women, as a group, have a huge problem facing their natural sexual preferences which do indeed include cockiness and other male traits deemed somewhat "notorious". So, instead of simply being truthful and saying "nice guys are usually low-status men and I find them entirely unattractive", they associate, more or less arbitrarily, negative traits to them: dangerous, entitled, lazy, crazy and so on. They transform visceral disgust into rational self-protection, free of judgement.

Our culture has this silly myth within it - specifically, the belief that female sexuality is this higher, more noble form of attraction that is more mental and less physical than male sexuality.
Combine this with the fact that many women, when confronting men who have been romantically turned down, will themselves try to be nice and say "but you're a very nice guy, of course there's a woman out there who'll love you!"
So how likely is it that the truth will be stated bluntly?
The truth is that female sexuality is no more and no less animalistic than male sexuality - it is focused primarily on appearance and superficial mannerisms (this is why dating coaches exist - they teach you how to emulate the superficial mannerisms that work for women). Ideally, we all want someone who ticks all the boxes, but biology tends to place the pressure onto certain aesthetic features being prioritized by the genitals.
All of this "nice guy" issue would be fixed immediately if the truth were openly acknowledged; variation exists but there are certain features and traits which most women in general will find particularly attractive. Just like men, women want aesthetically and superficially attractive people to sleep with.
But the "women like people on the basis of moral character" myth is perpetuated over and over again, often by women. Why? Its a flattering myth, and women who are kind and diplomatic are seen more favourably than women who are blunt and direct.
There may be another, more sinister reason (and I really hate to make speculations like this). By "leading a guy on" (as opposed to telling him openly that 'no, I don't find you sexually attractive'), women (particularly attractive women) can get things from that guy. This is a further incentive against women being direct; if a man presumes any particular woman as "available" he will generally try to win her favour and/or treat her more nicely than he otherwise would. She can benefit from the ruse.
So why are Nice Guys hated?
Because they effectively expose the truth. They disprove the positive prejudice about female sexuality and in turn signal to other men that being a "nice guy" won't get them laid... which in turn lessens the ease of "leading on" a guy and thus being able to get things from him.
Nice Guys are hardly filled with some sort of "male entitlement" - they're victims of pervasive cultural myths which flatter women. Groups are less likely to be hostile to positive prejudices about them... hell, there are even entire branches of feminism openly dedicated to propagating these positive stereotypes (I'm looking at you, Carol Gilligan!).

http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/co ... nice_guys/

Here we can see a good argument for how feminism can be used to rationalize any criticism of women, and indeed, anything that even HINTS at criticism, as an attack on women for their gender.
Nice guys expose that, actually, women aren't sexually morally superior.
This pisses them off. Hence the hatred.
Using feminism, they call this behaviour sexist, purely because it makes them butthurt. (A common theme of many womens issues. Challenging their image of themselves is sexism. Even if their image of themselves is sexist. Derp.)
Thats fucking crazy. So next time you see a woman spewing garbage attacks on nice guys, you'll know why.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A good example of why feminist ideologues are dangerous if they don't subscribe to facts, and it merely becomes a tool of womens sexism with which to oppress males:

I think the shaming of "nice guys" is a rationalization attempt. Women, as a group, have a huge problem facing their natural sexual preferences which do indeed include cockiness and other male traits deemed somewhat "notorious". So, instead of simply being truthful and saying "nice guys are usually low-status men and I find them entirely unattractive", they associate, more or less arbitrarily, negative traits to them: dangerous, entitled, lazy, crazy and so on. They transform visceral disgust into rational self-protection, free of judgement.

Our culture has this silly myth within it - specifically, the belief that female sexuality is this higher, more noble form of attraction that is more mental and less physical than male sexuality.
Combine this with the fact that many women, when confronting men who have been romantically turned down, will themselves try to be nice and say "but you're a very nice guy, of course there's a woman out there who'll love you!"
So how likely is it that the truth will be stated bluntly?
The truth is that female sexuality is no more and no less animalistic than male sexuality - it is focused primarily on appearance and superficial mannerisms (this is why dating coaches exist - they teach you how to emulate the superficial mannerisms that work for women). Ideally, we all want someone who ticks all the boxes, but biology tends to place the pressure onto certain aesthetic features being prioritized by the genitals.
All of this "nice guy" issue would be fixed immediately if the truth were openly acknowledged; variation exists but there are certain features and traits which most women in general will find particularly attractive. Just like men, women want aesthetically and superficially attractive people to sleep with.
But the "women like people on the basis of moral character" myth is perpetuated over and over again, often by women. Why? Its a flattering myth, and women who are kind and diplomatic are seen more favourably than women who are blunt and direct.
There may be another, more sinister reason (and I really hate to make speculations like this). By "leading a guy on" (as opposed to telling him openly that 'no, I don't find you sexually attractive'), women (particularly attractive women) can get things from that guy. This is a further incentive against women being direct; if a man presumes any particular woman as "available" he will generally try to win her favour and/or treat her more nicely than he otherwise would. She can benefit from the ruse.
So why are Nice Guys hated?
Because they effectively expose the truth. They disprove the positive prejudice about female sexuality and in turn signal to other men that being a "nice guy" won't get them laid... which in turn lessens the ease of "leading on" a guy and thus being able to get things from him.
Nice Guys are hardly filled with some sort of "male entitlement" - they're victims of pervasive cultural myths which flatter women. Groups are less likely to be hostile to positive prejudices about them... hell, there are even entire branches of feminism openly dedicated to propagating these positive stereotypes (I'm looking at you, Carol Gilligan!).

http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/co ... nice_guys/

Here we can see a good argument for how feminism can be used to rationalize any criticism of women, and indeed, anything that even HINTS at criticism, as an attack on women for their gender.
Nice guys expose that, actually, women aren't sexually morally superior.
This pisses them off. Hence the hatred.
Using feminism, they call this behaviour sexist, purely because it makes them butthurt.
Thats fucking crazy.

Ostro, I am sorry but your second quote is bullshit.

I mean, if that was the case that women only look for superficial features, I'd have gotten laid at least once every night by now.

[Ostroeuropa]

A good example of why feminist ideologues are dangerous if they don't subscribe to facts, and it merely becomes a tool of womens sexism with which to oppress males:






http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/co ... nice_guys/

Here we can see a good argument for how feminism can be used to rationalize any criticism of women, and indeed, anything that even HINTS at criticism, as an attack on women for their gender.
Nice guys expose that, actually, women aren't sexually morally superior.
This pisses them off. Hence the hatred.
Using feminism, they call this behaviour sexist, purely because it makes them butthurt.
Thats fucking crazy.

Ostro, I am sorry but your second quote is bullshit.

I mean, if that was the case that women only look for superficial features, I'd have gotten laid at least once every night by now.

They don't ONLY look for superficial features. Their sexuality is no more and no less animalistic than males. (Stereotypes against whom go the other way, that they are purely or more animalistic.)
Getting them to acknowledge this and stop lying to themselves and to males is important.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ostro, I am sorry but your second quote is bullshit.

I mean, if that was the case that women only look for superficial features, I'd have gotten laid at least once every night by now.

They don't ONLY look for superficial features. Their sexuality is no more and no less animalistic than males.
Getting them to acknowledge this and stop lying to themselves and to males is important.

That doesn't make your second quote from a poster right though.

I mean sure I've gotten dates with much older women and my saving grace have been my looks, but I've only gotten laid once is what I am saying. Being a nice guy or an asshole doesn't equate into whether or not you're going to get laid. That the basics are animalistic? Yea, okay, sure; but I don't think your guy/gal is expressing themselves right or know what they're talking about. I say that as someone who had to learn how to date.

[Ostroeuropa]

They don't ONLY look for superficial features. Their sexuality is no more and no less animalistic than males.
Getting them to acknowledge this and stop lying to themselves and to males is important.

That doesn't make your second quote from a poster right though.

I mean sure I've gotten dates with much older women and my saving grace have been my looks, but I've only gotten laid once is what I am saying. Being a nice guy or an asshole doesn't equate into whether or not you're going to get laid. That the basics are animalistic? Yea, okay, sure; but I don't think your guy/gal is expressing themselves right or know what they're talking about. I say that as someone who had to learn how to date.

The fundamentals of why women react this way about nice guys are on the mark in my opinion. It's also a clear example of feminist mindsets causing womens bigotry to become equated with egalitarianism, purely because of womens feelz.
That's the result of gynocentricity.

It's not the only factor, but one of a few.

Yes, women seem to have this myth perpetuated about them that their sexual apetite is somehow based more on personality, and they assist in perpetuating this myth because it's flattering and nice to believe. Challenging this myth is perceived as an attack on women, rather than an attack on sexism, because of gynocentric mindsets that don't understand the difference.

It's a male complaining about it's life being hard. Kill it.

It's a male outing themselves as not being pre-selected, and thus repulsive.

It endangers womens privilege because if people start to understand this, they will stop being nicer to women than men as a default and women will have to actually earn it.