Discussion: “Don’t Judge Me! She Screeched.”

by Harmony's Riddle

The context for this conversation is online dating. The actual journal entry is here (click here).

You’re saying that if a girl acts nice, she’s actually really egotistical. Never mind that it’s egotistical to believe you should completely dominate your partner. You add later that these girls are secretly ashamed of themselves and fiercely judgmental. Unfortunately, your saying this doesn’t actually make it true, so I’m asking you to provide reasoning.

No. Read the whole section rather than the part that was cherry-picked to make a point.

What I wrote means: if a woman labels herself a Nice Girl, men probably respond by acting like “Nice Guy” doormats. Most women despise Nice Guys, despite claiming that they adore them. Women treat Nice Guys like rented second-hand upholstery (if such a thing were to exist). This is known to any guy who has ever acted “Nice” to a woman he has just met, before he has given her a reason to respect him. If she sees a man as weak, she will generally treat him like trash by acting “egotistically” and generally dominating him. Her “Nice Girl” self-image prevents her from being overt about this, so she will often resort to passive-aggressive tactics (mentioned in the entry and more extensively elsewhere in the journal).

The reasoning is actually in the text. I’m re-phrasing it here because you missed it (or decided not to read it) the first time. If I “added something later” (in the entry), I’ll address it later in the context of where it was “added”, not here, where you grafted it for yourself.

Here is where a non-sexist would list things a person would be upset about, such as being late to work or having their laptop stolen. Yet it’s important to you that you list things a woman would be upset about, which involve being stepped on by men, having emotional overreactions, and an incapacity to think for herself.

No. Read the whole section rather than the part that was cherry-picked to make a point.

These are gender-specific items because I’m specifically writing about women. I wouldn’t like being stepped on by men if I was a woman; I don’t see the “emotional overreactions” that you’re claiming; and it’s true that very few people, male or female, are particularly adept at thinking for themselves (although most people believe that they are skilled thinkers, as I would guess both you and I — and anyone else reading this — also prefers to think about ourselves). Also, if you reverse the genders, a man would (hopefully) be aggravated by the same issues if they happened to him. You actually did overreact to this passage, although your gender probably isn’t the problem, even if you choose to believe that it is.

Again, you’re making a sexist claim and speaking with a false sense of authority.

Explain your opinion. Or don’t. Until then, my answer is simple and “authoritative”: no.

…There are many reasons why someone is a jerk, but if it’s a woman, the only explanation you accept is she’s stuck up about her looks. Also, what do you mean by sexual bully? I have a strong suspicion you’re misusing the term.

If her online dating profile is practically empty save for: text parroted from other women and a gallery of photos celebrating the joys of a pushup bra, several layers of makeup and advantageous camera angles (this briefly describes many, many profiles) — then yes, given the opportunity, she will probably try to bully men into submission, using her looks and presumed “sex appeal” (see “Nice Girl” comments above). I cover this phenomenon in more detail elsewhere in the journal.

My answers are bolded in parentheses here to save space: “You’re again coining your own terms (about what I call ‘fake feminism’), and without explanation (no. read the entire rest of the journal if you want). Why would someone be a fake feminist as opposed to a real one? (I have no idea. Guesses: ignorance; bias due to media-driven stereotypes and misconceptions; and because it suits them since most men don’t know what a real feminist is, either, and will automatically acquiesce to any woman’s definition since she’s a woman and therefore can falsely claim first-hand knowledge.) Is it because you believe feminism is a terrible movement that women are easily brainwashed into accepting? (No. I have no problem with feminism.) You also seem to think women are incredibly shitty people if you think they are driven by an overwhelming desire to ‘shame’ others for not submitting to their every whim. (This would be true, if I thought that of all women… which I obviously don’t.)

Once again, you’re making unsubstantiated claims about women being horrible fucking people.

No. You’re overgeneralizing. Some women will play the “you’re a sociopath” game (often because they are blindly imitating other women who write similarly “horrible” things in their profiles). Other women don’t play that game. I don’t think it’s “horrible”, by the way. Just mildly annoying, unintentionally amusing once you’ve seen it often enough and somewhat sad that so many women blindly imitate each other, using shame as a social control tactic against men.

In your first one-line comment, you implied that you have the “authority” to know what I “should” do (“don’t write articles”). This came after throwing around a gender-based term (“misogyny”) without any justification at all aside from the fact that you are (I guess) a woman. That is a shame tactic of false “authority” (I am woman, hear me roar!) that many women use and that’s why I didn’t let you get away with it. You have no business telling anyone else what they “should” do, regardless. That is the pinnacle of arrogant, self-absorbed behavior, exacerbated by the one-sentence “announcement” format in which you chose to make your comment. Hiding behind the idea that you’re female, and therefore you are right and I am “sexist” is simply wrong.

Thanks for explaining your previous comment; hopefully my answers were at least somewhat useful to the person who is reading them (that means you, whoever you are).

The actual journal entry is here (click here) if you, or anyone else reading this, wants to read (or re-read) it.