• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

How much do looks really matter to women? And how much does personality (if at all)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tired said:
Oh yes, many patriarchal women will bully those, who go against the flow. That's all the women from my family.
Click to expand...
It took me a few tries to make sense of Patriarchal Women. :)

But yes, in effect that's what we're talking about.
 
Forest Cat said:
In Norway we treat the women well, if we don't we have to hide in a forest in Sweden until they calm down. :) Hell hath no fury like a angry Norwegian woman.
Click to expand...
Well, countries I lived in and talk about are second world countries, yours is a first world one. Would be extremely sad, if there women would also be harassed the same way. It's interesting that the less progressive country is, the more women are treated like second class there. And don't get me started on LGBT.

Ah, I think I need to drop this topic, it just makes me depressive :)
 
When we sit and discuss all the men who don't have sex/relationships, we forget that there are groups of woman that may not be deemed as socially attractive, and also spend many endless years on their own. But they aren't forming icel meet-ups to trash males. If you are considered attractive by social standards, then you spend a good part of your life turning down sexual advances in jobs. You can also attract men from any social economic group who feel that they are entitled to your time. Because society's treatment of woman can be less then favorable especially in male driven states, where you see a majority of jobs held by males, then you may chose to not date but just solely work on survival. l was married 18 years, and l could not find an attorney to represent me for at least one year, they all favored my ex. So there is the other side of the woman's prospective on why our daughters may not get married or pursue relationships due to the damage they saw their moms go thru. We can discuss attractive looks all day long, but there are other considerations. There are groups of woman who feel at a disadvantage, just as other groups of people do, and perhaps we chose not to date, so it may have nothing to do with looks at all.
 
Last edited:
Aspychata said:
When we sit and discuss all the men who don't have sex/relationships, we forget that there are groups of woman that may not be deemed as socially attractive, and also spend many endless years on their own. But they aren't forming icel meet-ups to trash males. If you are considered attractive by social standards, then you spend a good part of your life turning down sexual advances in jobs. You can also attract men from any social economic group who feel that they are entitled to your time. Because society's treatment of woman can be less then favorable especially in male driven states, where you see a majority of jobs held by males, then you may chose to not date but just solely work on survival. l was married 18 years, and l could not find an attorney to represent me for at least one year, they all favored my ex. So there is the other side of the woman's prospective on why our daughters may not get married or pursue relationships due to the damage they saw their moms go thru. We can discuss attractive looks all day long, but there are other considerations. There are groups of woman who feel at a disadvantage, just as other groups of people do, and perhaps we chose not to date, so it may have nothing to do with looks at all.
Click to expand...

How did incels find their way into this post at all?
You can't be claiming or implying that they, of all people, are harming unattractive women in any way, large or small?

In fact, accusing men of not wanting interactions with any or all women is the same as the questionable "rights" claim that was made against incels earlier: nobody has a right to another person's romantic interest. Which means some people won't get what they want. There's no solution for this in a democratic country.

Similarly the next stage, which is men in general. The entire "women are, in the 21st century, actively oppressed by the Patriarchy" is false.

If you can find any evidence to the contrary that isn't based on "pearl clutching and weasel words" I'll check it out
But don't e.g. use articles written by Feminist Journos that have no basis in fact. There are decades of inaccurate claims of different kinds, so that kind of thing is easy to find online - in fact it's hard to avoid. A strong indicator that an article is fabricated is the fake "xx:100" F/M split "gender wage gap" claims (Over the years "xx" has floated around from 65 to 80. It's been entirely false (via deliberate misrepresentation) since the 1980's).

Overall, the situation as already flipped, and women have an edge these days. A simple example statistic is that US College entries are 60% women these days. A 60/40 split means there are 1.5 women per man. If the "Equity" part of DEI is ever enforced, that will have to change :)

The claim that there's a Patriarchy can be disproven intuitively by answering this question:
What rights do men have in 2024 that women do not?

Note that discrimination has been illegal in "the Western World" since the 1970's +/- a bit. If there was any in the US, people would be making good money suing the perpetrators of this illegal behavior.

The list of rights men have that women don't is short (in almost all relevant cases, zero). So when that's ready, you could add in rights, benefits, and advantages that women have and men don't. Start with what in the US is called IIRC the "selective draft" (M only). And the various forms of anti-male judicial bias (not just family law - it also includes e.g. women getting significantly lower sentences than men for identical crimes, and the penalties for false accusations of all kinds (something women do far more than men) are trivial in proportion to the effect on men even if an accusation is proved false, or no charges were made because the investigation showed that was no substance to the accusation.

I'm not going to address all of the claims of bias in your post. But that's primarily because I'm more concerned about cynical politically motivated false claims of extremism than the "big picture" of the war between the sexes.

BTW I get that other people have been spreading those lies, and that you didn't originate them. But some things shouldn't be repeated without checking the facts carefully.
 
Last edited:
Hypnalis said:
The claim that there's a Patriarchy can be disproven intuitively by answering this question:
What rights do men have in 2024 that women do not?
Click to expand...
Patriarchy is not about rights, it's about behavior towards women in the world created by men for men.
 
Hypnalis said:
I get that other people have been spreading those lies, and that you didn't originate them
Click to expand...
Or I should better say that patriarchy isn't just about legal rights. It's also about the societal structures, behaviors, and attitudes that perpetuate inequality and disadvantage women. It's about the way our experiences and perspectives are often dismissed - exactly like what’s happening in your post.
Your reaction to @Aspychata comment is an example of the very issue I'm talking about: the dismissal of women's lived experiences as "lies." Instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue, you've resorted to undermining the legitimacy of those experiences. This kind of behavior is precisely what some of us are tired of encountering almost daily.
Hopefully one day you can approach discussions like these with more empathy and a genuine willingness to understand perspectives beyond your own. Until then, this conversation has reached its end for me. Please do not feel the need to respond, because I will not answer to you, after seeing, how you treated Aspychata.
 
Tired said:
Patriarchy is not about rights, it's about behavior towards women in the world created by men for men.
Click to expand...

This is a case of "If you have no receipts, it didn't happen".
I'll discuss it if you can provide some data, but anecdotes aren't data.

Fun fact: the world today was created by men for women and children.

Men on their own don't go for "houses in the suburbs with white picket fences". Nor do they care about the levels of order and comfort that are modern norms.

Most of that is for the children of course, but the comfort is for women.
If the war between the sexes continues much longer, this will start to become very obvious to women /lol.
:
:
The behavior thing is more complicated, but fundamentally similar. There's considerable misunderstanding in the modern world about how and why things used to work back in Boomer and pre-Boomer times.

The easiest thing to look at is "Chivalry". These are behaviors and free services that, in the past, were part of a "social contract". The contract has been torn up; slowly, step by step, actual equality has been established - and chivalry is dead.

So "rights" according to the old contract became privileges that were neither earned nor appreciated, and now they're gone.
Good/Bad? Fair/Unfair? It doesn't matter. The past has become the present, changing along the way, and everyone must adjust.
:
:
Anyway, any discussion about behavior has to take account of the real world. And perhaps not exactly the current one, because the rules are being renegotiated at the moment. As with "Chivalry", assumptions are being tested, and changes are likely.

If you want me to care about some behavior or other it has to be real; it has to be a genuine issue; and there has to be a practical process in place to address the issue. If it's not being addressed, given modern political realities, there has to be a very good reason for that - because there have been 50+ years to start work on any valid issues.
 
l simply speak from years of experience being a female, and living in some states that are less friendly to woman than others, however, there are many groups that are disadvantaged, not just woman in general. So ll believe you are too biased for me to understand , and you are unable to see any other views. Man created the world for woman you say, well guess what? Woman give birth to men, along with articulate, intelligent females. Perhaps this forum will help you to see the other side of the issue from others who may express opinions that don't necessarily align with yours.
 
Last edited:
Going back to the original question I an atypical man better looking than most, weird personality believe me woman go for the looks first personality later. Unlike most Aspie guys I had to be picky about the woman they were attracted to me like flies, when younger. At the time I had no idea I was an Aspie.
 
Tired said:
Or I should better say that patriarchy isn't just about legal rights. It's also about the societal structures, behaviors, and attitudes that perpetuate inequality and disadvantage women. It's about the way our experiences and perspectives are often dismissed - exactly like what’s happening in your post.
Your reaction to @Aspychata comment is an example of the very issue I'm talking about: the dismissal of women's lived experiences as "lies." Instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue, you've resorted to undermining the legitimacy of those experiences. This kind of behavior is precisely what some of us are tired of encountering almost daily.
Hopefully one day you can approach discussions like these with more empathy and a genuine willingness to understand perspectives beyond your own. Until then, this conversation has reached its end for me. Please do not feel the need to respond, because I will not answer to you, after seeing, how you treated Aspychata.
Click to expand...

Receipts or it didn't happen.

By the way - your first paragraph is an example of the "weasel words" technique I referred to earlier. There's a page on wikipedia if you want to check it out. As for dismissing what you said - you said nothing with objective relevance or value.

This is not a discussion about experiences or opinions. It's about false narratives versus facts.

And on that point: lies are lies (e.g. the "Gender Wage Gap" fiction). I'm not going to spend time getting data, but I already have some on the gender pay gap, and I have some "indirect" data on the effect of single mother homes on children.

BTW I am familiar with the style of argument you're using. Yesterday, purely by chance, I said this about someone who was being interviewed on a topic not too far from this one. From memory, I wrote:

"X is the kind of man who can speak truth to women, and never get the response: "I understand and accept the truth of what you said, but I will ignore and forget it because I don't like the way you said it."

(BTW that was a compliment, and I was defending the guy from people who were misreading his comments due to his style, which is almost certainly helps him in his professional career).

The point here (and in that context) is to highlight the difference between objective truth and subjective truth (or, if you like, treating "feelings" as facts).

The "lived experience" trope was designed to make it easier to present feelings (i.e. subjective truth) as facts. And like all sneaky rhetorical techniques is something that can be meaningful, truthful, and relevant. But when it's used outside of its appropriate domain, it's just a another clever way to sell a false narrative.

BTW you should not have engaged in this discussion of you're afraid of dissenting views. It must have been immediately obvious we are not in full agreement.
By all means let it go, or support Aspychata indirectly if you wish. But remember you chose the path that led you here.
 
@Aspychata

My concern here is the attacks on Incels.

Firstly because there are a lot of ASD "incels" (I don't remember the %, but certainly "double digits"), and secondly because they were literally targeted by various organized groups that claimed (with no meaningful data) they are terrorists.

So a pretty serious attack against our own.

As a group they are not happy, and many are not mentally well. They should be helped rather than demonized.
And ASDs in particular should be on the side of support and treatment.

So I react to that when it comes up, and address anything in the same posts that is indirectly related.

But ... I don't like being lectured in correct thought "for my own benefit". If that happens when I'm having a "bad hair day" I usually respond /lol.
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise everyone has an opinion and everyone is equally right (and conversely equally wrong at the same time)

There are echo chambers elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Hypnalis said:
@Au Naturel

You're reacting to the "90% false" version of definition of "incel".

Even "men feel they have a right to sex" is a dishonest reframing (not by you OFC - it's extremely common, but repetition didn't make the "gender wage gap" real either (it's been a false narrative for over 40 years)).

I'm not very interested in tracing the lies, but the numbers obviously leave room for men who want sex and/or relationships and get neither:
* Fewer and later marriages, with a steady increase in the proportion of single women
* Women are hypergamous (this is evolved, so it's not good or bad - "it is what it is")

Clearly some males (not too many as a %, but out of about 4 billion total (165 million in the US), reduced to the correct demographic, that's still a lot of individuals.) will be left out of the game. A reminder. 30-odd percent of "incels" (i.e. those who are active in common-interest groups online) are ASD.

So we need to get away from the mainstream framing, and look at the words: in the case of incels, "RIght" clearly doesn't mean: Check the list of accepted human rights on the UN web site, and "The Right to have sex" is there beside "The Right to body autonomy".

But there is an obvious use of equivocation in the evolution of the false narrative. And Costello said that incels are genuinely frustrated and resentful (we can see such attitudes in this very forum), and they are prone to hyperbole.

So I don't doubt that scanning the web will come up with all kinds of intemperate language. But scanning the web provides intemperate language in a very wide range of related topics. And a lot of outright lies that operate in the other direction, some quite destructive for women, from the same source as the false "incel = terrorist" claims.

Like the wage gap BS, I could provide examples, but most of the real-world damage has already been done, so I'm not inclined to upset people here, where it won't do any good.

So I'll close by a mild reversal of the argument: one of the underlying causes of young men having difficulties finding sexual partners is reflected in the ever increasing proportion of women who "age out" of the normal age range for having children without ever having a child or settling down (genuine LTR (a rara avis these days) or marriage).

They have a right to do this of course, and I'm not interested in whether they have regrets or not.

The point is that it's a reasonable assumption that, due to hypergamy (which is a natural, evolved behavior in human XX's) they've probably never interacted with someone who would self-identify as "involuntarily celibate".

OFC this doesn't close the loop in terms of stats or logic, but I'm not trying to put a full picture together. It's just some informal support for the fact that in the 21st century, some number of males are going to have real difficulty finding any sexual partners. And that demonizing them, particularly using obvious lies, is not reasonable.

A prediction:
As we move forward in time, we'll see more and more articles calling for sympathy for the group of women I mentioned above, along with calls for special support for them.
Meanwhile the "incels" will continue to be maligned - not only won't they receive the mental health support and treatment they deserve, but they'll continue to have their mental health openly attacked by a fairly large part of society.

Given the ongoing population crunch, it's difficult to imagine a worse time for conflict between the sexes. But here we are, participating (in a very small way) in such a conflict.

But perhaps it's inevitable. After all, the underlying cause of both problems is the same /lol.
Click to expand...

"I have little sympathy for 'incels' who blame women for their lack of sex." means that if they don't blame women for their lack of sex, then they aren't covered by the statement. It is the placement of blame that is objectionable. I should have phrased it differently.

There may well be incel influencers out there who understand that the world has gotten more competitive and respond either by attempts to be more desirable or by accepting the reality that sex just isn't in the cards. However, there is no shortage of influencers who take the opposite tack. They are bad examples of how to cope.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom