why are feminist obsessed with Nice guys(TM)

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I have considered it. I would imagine there are any number of reasons. But I attribute them with autonomy. Some people may not realise they are being jerks and, if it's pointed out, may then see and apologise and it's all lovely. Others are jerks but are convinced they're not.

One need not be either a jerk or nice. One can simply be polite and courteous, a middle ground that makes getting along in society easier. I don't expect everyone to be nice. Indeed, I don't expect anyone to be nice. Simply not being a jerk would be good. Being the sourface grumpypuss I am, I'd find it all a bit cloying if everyone were nice.

If Nice Guys were actually nice, that'd be one thing. They insist they are, but they're not. Yet still they insist they are, and so they cannot comprehend why a woman (be it particular or in general) has not agreed to go out with them. And when they cannot comprehend this, they make up all sorts of silly about what women actually want, how they actually are etc. It's something that has always been there to an extent, but I think this particular batch has been dragged along behind the whole Game/Alpha-Omega thing.

I'm writing from a UK perspective, and I get the sense this is largely US-centric, though as with a lot of US culture, it likely made inways over here.

Dear God, people can be f*****g weird.

There is a VERY easy solution to this…

If you have a problem with feminists, just don't hang out with them. Same reason I don't get into protracted arguments with feminists here…#1, I'm really not all THAT interested, though I enjoy arguing with feminists for the same reason I enjoy arguing with anyone…I learn a lot that way, and I like learning things. #2, while I don't 100% share and appreciate the feminist perspective, I'm not THAT opposed to feminist views, either. Something I'd be vehemently opposed to when talking with a feminist would be the abortion topic. A feminist would likely say that abortion is a women's rights issue, while I would argue that it is a HUMAN rights issue. While patriarchy does exist, at least in some sense, it doesn't necessarily follow that all women in western society are held back by things related to patriarchy, like the supposed "glass ceiling" and other things. I'm not saying it NEVER happens, but I think the feminist position relating to patriarchy is somewhat hyperbolic in today's society. Do I feel like going on and on about it? No, and if a feminist goes off on me about how supposedly wrong I am about any of those issues in which I'd disagree with feminists, it isn't exactly going to ruin or dominate my day. Getting all bent out of shape over what some feminist somewhere said about Nice Guys™ just isn't how I like to waste the bulk of my time.

Speaking of my day…time to take my almos-2-year old boy and my daughter out to the park. It's a great day to fly a kite, methinks. =D My little girl plays in her first piano festival tomorrow. I'm a very happy dad right now.

I've always found the nice guy/jerk dichotomy to be ridiculous.

My theory is that men are complex creatures who are not easily put into small boxes like "nice" or "jerk."

Where have romantically unsuccessful men been treated badly by feminists? Where? I mean, just for being romantically unsuccessful? Not for being sexist or what have you, but solely for being romantically unsuccessful. Where? I'd like an example, please. I'd like an example of a feminist essentially saying to a man, 'hey - you there, Mr romantically unsuccessful. Sure, you're a decent fellow, friendly, liberal minded, an all round good egg. But - you're romantically unsuccessful. And that is against my feminist principles. Therefore, I'm going to have on at you for only that reason."

Give me an example, or stop trying to make like it has ever happened, let alone is a common occurence.

Do feminists or far leftists take disagreement with romantically unsuccesful men? Damn right. Why not? If a romantically unsuccessful man says something one finds politically objectionable, why wouldn't one take them to task for it?

Does the men being romantically unsuccessful figure in any way as a cause or issue for the feminists and/or far leftists to take umbrage at? No. No it doesn't. Don't be so f*****g silly.

I know plenty of jerks have girlfriends. Because some jerks have girlfriends, it does not follow that all jerks have girlfriends, and so it similarly does not follow that only non-jerks don't have girlfriends.

Why each individual Nice Guy is rejected - who knows? I haven't said they were single because they were jerks, though I would be surprised if that didn't figure highly. Plenty of non-Nice Guys are rejected, and plenty of rejected men manage to not be jerks. I have said - in response to your subject title - feminists (and non-feminists) take a disliking to Nice Guys because they are jerks. Because of what is implicit in identifying oneself as a Nice Guy, the mindset it takes. This is not the same as rejecting their romantic advances.

after this post i think i can assure you with certainty that your difficulties with women are not due to feminism, or any other cause external to yourself.

i asked my mother when i was 4-5 years old why hadn't i been born a boy since i was so much like the boys and preferred playing with them to the girls my age. i don't think i ever felt wrong in my body as i've heard is the experience of many transgender people (nor do i feel that way now), but i recognised pretty early that there were certain expectations placed on my behaviour due to my being female that i wouldn't be able to live up to because they didn't come naturally to me. luckily my mother was the kind of woman to teach me that it was the expectations that were unnatural, not my inability to live up to them.

^^^ i think i love you. seriously though, thanks for the laugh.

That's so typical and so obvious - the tired, old "you can't get a girl" refrain. (Never mind the earlier post. Maybe you didn't see it.) That's exactly why sites like MGTOW exist. The message is simple: men should be happy for ourselves and decide for ourselves what's important when we vote, study, work and prioritize our day.

You don't hear me ragging on girls for being "old maids" who "couldn't get married."

Every time you play those cards, you just make it more obvious why you're doing it. Men are better than that.

I like sex. I like relationships. I like cooking breakfast in the morning. I used to like taking a three-year-old to the park. I just didn't like the terms, and I'll never regret dumping or snubbing girls who would use needling and freely-associative shaming to ge men to give in to them cheaply.

My original post to this thread was Re: comments about "nice guys" not really being nice, and accusations of "clinginess".

(http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5952785 ... t=#5952785)

Like I said: 'Don't want to feel obligated? Then don't.'

Don't tell me what I should study, either. I study what makes me powerful; things that help me predict things that are important to my goals; things that help me make things that I want. I can build a safer, healthier, cleaner, more powerful world without you.

i think that, unfortunately for you (and i really do wish it were otherwise--i hope things are better for you in the future), you will continue to struggle to find contentment in any relationship until you find a way to deal with your anger. it comes across in everything you say, and it's something that can prevent being able to truly connect with other people. i would suggest finding someone to talk to about it, but somehow i doubt you would take me seriously if i did. i'm not saying these things to be manipulative or "shaming".

She sounds very sensible.

Yeah, I've never felt wrong in my body - the transgender experiences I've read very much emphasised that - but there was definitely a problem with what I now take to be performed masculinity. That is, certain ways men (and many boys) around me seemed to behave, I didn't. I had no interest or ability to behave tlike they did. I guess that sense of distance formed an understanding of the performative nature of a lot of gender idenity, and thus fluidity.

It is discombobulating. That sense of, 'I'm x. x are supposed to behave like y. I don't, and I can't. Therefore I must not be x. But I am x. x are supposed...'. To see spectrums, to see fluidity and gradations, is a world-picture that just makes much more sense, rather than having a rigid, narrow theory and having to keep explaining why the various exceptions/contradictions are, or even just outright denying them.



Aww, shucks. And I'm glad it amused.

Why do you think that contentment would come from a relationship? That's right out of the '50s.

At this point I'd like you to be independent. We got rid of home-making classes a long time ago, and that's good. It's time to get rid of classes that make boys into breadwinners. It's just not needed anymore.

Removing that oversupply would be much more powerful than a higher minimum wage.

What he said.^^^^^

I think many issues stem from social gender roll expectations, women have been being freed from theirs, but their refusing to let men be freed of their own as well, by rejecting him if he is otherwise then to that criteria and expectations of him as a male. its easy to say your free to do something only to condemn them for it through rejection. man does not want rejection but instead acceptance, therefore he is chained to that of womens demands of him. after all, a tomboy is fine with most men as a mate, while a pretty boy wouldn't be vary attractive to a woman. women still have those breadwinner expectations of men even if they make the same as a man, all that confidence ego and ambition expected out of a man that wouldn't be expected out of a woman before their considered dating material.

honestly, i'm not quite sure how to answer this post. are you intentionally misreading what i said, or did you really miss my point about looking for the answers to your problems within yourself?

i have been single for 10 years and feel contented with myself--i obviously don't think it's necessary to be in a relationship to be happy. what i meant was that if you expect to be able to have healthy, mutually beneficial relationships with other people--any kind of relationship, whether romantic or friendly or familial--you're going to have to find a way to not approach everything from such an angry perspective, otherwise you will find most of your interactions with other human beings to be strained at the very least, if not always contentious. unless, that is, those are the sort of interactions you're looking for--arguments, not debates or exchanges.

if they are, i can't help you there. i enjoy sharing ideas--i don't enjoy arguing.

yes,but have you had any partners of any kind,in that time period.
(fwb,dating but not official,''romantic male friend'')

you be surprise how many times,I've heard women say
their ''single''only to found out,they are regularly having
a romantic or sexual relation with a guy(or guys)

that why I think single,should be divided into 2 groups
single,with no partners of any kind
single,but with partners of any kind

then stop using the jerk excuse,the entitle excuse,the sexist excuse.
it's simple,feminist can't admit,they judge men by looks,and/or
social status. a 6'2,attractive,500,000$ a year,Jerk can
attract women(including feminist),a 5'3'',overweight,less than
15,000$ year,Jerk can't attract women.

so,what's the difference,simple one Jerk attractive,and successful,
and the other one's not,that it.It's that simple