on doing your homework and getting called names for it

I went to Psychology today and clicked on this not very interesting article. Blah blah blah evolutionary psychology man stuff.

The comments were mostly women chiming in about how they don’t actually date assholes, and then there was this one, which reminded me of something:

The fact that you provided the “friend zone” as an example in a consequence-styled outcome shows that maybe you need to go back and do a little more studying on sexuality and relationship dynamics before displaying your PhD status.

Sexual attraction can be very fluid and changes with the current emotions of the female brain (whom has a more feminine neurodiversity), or it can also take a long time to develop into something strong. The scenario of a friendship turning into something sexual (female becoming slowly attracted to the male) after many months or even a few years is very common amongst adults.

But that is assuming the male isn’t doing favors or nice things in hopes to get in her pants like a dishonest “Nice Guy™ from OkCupid.”

Because our brains change and are so plastic, and the fact that we do not have evidence of behaviors of early humans throughout evolution “Evo-psych” cannot be very well applied like most other scientific fields. All we have are fossil artifacts which can be put into speculations.

I responded there with a few sentences, but here I want to dissect this comment in detail.

The first sentence correctly points out that it’s wrong to treat people as a means and not as ends unto themselves. Relationships are not a game where you win by unscrupulously talking people into bed with you. But I think we need to have a talk about nice guys and the friend zone.

I’ve thought about it before knowing I’m autistic. Then, I could actually understand the point that there’s something inauthentic about the “nice guy” approach of attempting to win people over with a show of decency and helpfulness. The person’s behavior isn’t reflecting all of their motives, so they’re acting in bad faith. How could a woman respect a man who’s afraid of asking her out? The grossness of the implied sexual quid pro quo. I understand all that.

But then I got diagnosed with autism and people are telling me all the time that I’m brain-damaged for not understanding why daily social interactions have to be based around casual dishonesty for the sake of normal people’s emotional avoidance. Honesty is a deficit, not a sign of good character.

That completely changes the meaning of objections to “nice guys” that I’ve heard.

The problem women are complaining about is that somebody is implicitly propositioning them, with plausible deniability. Elsewhere I’ve read that that’s the definition of flirtation. The complaints about nice guys mean that women are getting the message. Is that not successful nonverbal communication, which maintains a face-saving charade?

There’s only one reasonable conclusion: women are objecting to nice guys because they don’t want to have sex with them, not because their approach is wrong or even that women have a problem with misogyny. Presumably the women are insulted at being approached by someone of lower social status, like we’re dragging them down to our level. Not knowing our place.

It’s very obvious that the objection is implicitly directed at loser guys for who they are, rather than any specific thing that they did wrong.

Women are imposing a real, actual double standard. After they receive the message, do they immediately stop receiving favors from their pet nice guy? When they do not, that is called the friend zone, a situation brought about by mutual bad faith.

It’s hard to discuss these matters because of a vicious cycle of stupid shit. The women are to blame for saying they’re against the patriarchy while fucking it. The men are to blame for their inauthentic strategy. This is where it gets sordid. The women have implicitly, but actually and personally, insulted a group of men who were instead fantasizing about being noticed in a tender way. Those men, having heard the message that they should grow a pair, then behave in the way the women have taught them is masculine: being a domineering shithead.

I think what’s controversial about what I’m saying is that it’s more than 0% women’s fault. They make it worse by holding up nice guy behavior as an example of “male sexual entitlement.” Is he doing your homework as an implicit trade for sex, or is it because you asked to be approached indirectly and helping with your homework has symbolic meaning?

In my own family, my mom was the one stuck on patriarchal stuff from the Bible. Not my dad.

If anything, I’m probably underestimating how much crappy status-related motivations are behind women’s complaints, because I’m not part of day-to-day competition with everyone.

How is “fuck you” not an appropriate response to “you’re beneath me?” What is the correct protocol for approaching someone who may or may not think they’re too good for you? Hide in your room forever and die alone, because they probably never even considered that.

Consider: the “nice guys” women are complaining about are socially retarded, and thus MORE likely to believe their surface bullshit story about how they’re passive victims with no agency. “Man,” they think, “it must suck to be sexually harassed and objectified. I’ll be better than that!” And then they’re punished for it.

Modern pseudo-feminism can’t get anywhere because “only approach me if you’re good enough” isn’t a real approach to social problems; it’s something a stuck-up bitch would say because she’s sick of getting approached by “losers.”

At some point you learn to understand that all advice you’re given by normals has the same meaning: “Surely someone else will sleep with you, and I am going to say generic stuff until I feel good about myself for pitying you.” There is no somebody else.

Speaking of implicit messages and bad faith, every time I have ever been in the friend zone, I will hear all about dating problems involving men doing things I would never do. Why isn’t that an implicit promise that they’ll stop dating whoever and be with you instead? Otherwise it’s clearly inappropriate to whine about your boyfriend to another dude.

And it’s actually true that men experiencing these problems without my level of privilege won’t have the same politically correct vocabulary.

Let’s return to the comment from the beginning of this post. What types of rhetorical sludge accompany all the issues I’ve just talked about?

We have meaningless phrases: “feminine neurodiversity.” Arrogant boasting: “You need to do more studying blah blah blah.”

WTF is she even talking about here? It’s worth repeating:

Because our brains change and are so plastic, and the fact that we do not have evidence of behaviors of early humans throughout evolution “Evo-psych” cannot be very well applied like most other scientific fields. All we have are fossil artifacts which can be put into speculations.

It’s not helping to brag about your vast studies on human sexuality and then end on complete ignorance of anthropology. She probably couldn’t tell you the difference between Neanderthals and Homo erectus, which is why she thinks everything is just “fossils.”

Being scientifically illiterate doesn’t help nerdy men listen to you. Being too cool for learning anything in detail is a common character flaw of humanities people.

I want feminism to win. If these are its messengers, it doesn’t deserve to win. They’re too stuck in a sisterhood of acting this way to pull their sisters aside and have talks with them.

Sex-positive feminists at frat parties on Halloween are the worst. Congratulations on fucking away the credibility of your movement. At least they’re not nice guys, amirite?