When a man is "too nice" to a woman, some might say he is showing "weakness." She is "above his league," so he has to get her attention by being nicer than other men.

However, if the man is nice to _everyone_, and for some principled reason, then he is not really showing weakness by being nice.

It seems to me that religion, for instance, provides one with a principled reason for being nice (you want supernatural rewards) so that your niceness can't really be interpreted as weakness. Ancient Rome was a very "red pill" society, valuing dominance and power, including in the bedroom. Women were seen as weak and inferior to men. Powerful men were expected to cheat. Yet Christianity spread like wildfire, growing from a few tens or hundreds after Jesus' death to 30 million people three centuries later. Isn't that interesting? It was also more feminist, in a way. The Bible says, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).

Likewise, feminism provides you with a principled reason for being nice to women. The kind of "nice" is different than traditional values - volunteering to do chores rather than holding doors for her, but the principle is still there.

If a woman sees you being nice to a woman you aren't attracted to, or to a man who is weaker than you, I wonder if that might change her estimation of you as a nice guy. Likewise, if you are nice to her after she has rejected you, or if you do chores even when it's not aimed at "trading for sex."

My question is: do women know when a man is being nice for a principled reason (he would be nice to anyone), as opposed to being nice because she's out of his league and he's intimidated by her? Are women more attracted to the men who are "nice on principle"? Is feminism somehow our "replacement for religion" in this sense?