Defenestrated On “Nice Guys”

[This is a comment left by Defenestrated in one of the male oppression threads. With her permission, I’m making it a post of its own. 1 –Amp]

So, for example, if a young UU man likes a young UU woman, what he does is he goes over to her and tries really hard to be harmless. He doesn’t want to oppress anyone by expressing interest or desire, so he just hangs around and acts cooperative. The more he wants her to like him, the more submissive he acts. Not surprisingly, the young UU women find this boring, frustrating, incomprehensible, and just not sexy. He doesn’t understand why this doesn’t work, or why all the young UU women are off dating “bad” men instead of “nice” men like himself.

I think that in this particular instance, there’s something to be said for having had the experience of living on the opposite end of it. There’s a reason that there’s a Nice Guy™ moniker, and it’s not because women don’t dig actual kindness.

From the young UU woman’s perspective, there’s this guy hanging around her (or, more likely, multiple guys doing the exact same thing), pretending to only be interested in friendship when, from your description of the situation, it’s clear that his interest doesn’t end there. Even if the attraction is painfully obvious, since it’s never stated the woman can’t very well come right out and turn the guy down for something he hasn’t asked for. If she does, trust me, she’ll get torn to pieces for being so full of herself (after which the guy will probably resume the kicked puppy pose).

The specific male quandary you’ve described stems from a belief that by hanging around and being “nice,” a man is entitled to female affection. I have a lot of sympathy for a lot of situations that hit men, but being upset by not getting what they won’t ask for (and will thus often try to extract through manipulation, like pretending to be a friend when the friendship is treated as a tedious and insulting means to something else) isn’t one of them. Also, many – by no means all, but enough to make it a more than reasonable concern – of the kinds of guys who make this particular kind of complaint are only a step or two a way from outright stalking the object of their desire. The use of the word ‘object’ isn’t accidental.

I sympathize with the frustration and confusion, but that’s not the same as sympathizing with the reasoning behind the complaint. When I hear one of my own male friends voicing these kinds of concerns (or other anti-feminist thoughts that since we’re friends I know don’t come from malice or any intentional disrespect) I’m happy to help him see the opposite side of his experience and understand why things are that way. What I won’t do is agree that he gets to complain that his female friends aren’t all over him for being so cooperative and friendly. Especially if it comes along with a blanket disparagement of the judgment and tastes of said women (who says the men they date are “bad”? The men they don’t date? Is there a bias there?).

That doesn’t make me an unempathetic person. It makes me a person who knows that to actually relieve this form of “harm” against men without them changing their own behavior would have to mean taking the right to choose one’s own partners away from women. It’s empathy that makes me more interested in pointing out and clarifying the communication disconnect than commiserating about how selfish these independent women are for not being available for every man’s every whim. It’s also empathy that makes me understand that the situation you describe is also difficult for the woman involved, and likely provokes a (well-founded) fear that the man in the equation probably hasn’t faced, and usually doesn’t register.

  1. The original disagreement turned out to be a misunderstanding, but Defenestrated’s comments apply very well to several to self-proclaimed “nice guys” I’ve encountered, even if they were a little mis-aimed in the original context. []
This entry posted in Feminism, sexism, etc. Bookmark the permalink. 

479 Responses to Defenestrated On “Nice Guys”

  1. 401
    nobody.really says:

    [Y]ou’re so damn fixated on using women to boost your own social standing that you’re ignoring about 90% of the women out there. Which is the real issue, isn’t it? You don’t want to be with “a woman,” you want something that will make other men respect you and take you seriously. You’d never dream of going after any woman who wasn’t considered Hawt because then you’d still be the same old loser in your own eyes and in the eyes of the men you want so desperately to impress.

    This stirs some old memories.

    I was a “late bloomer” guy – meaning I lacked a personal understanding of lust until I was in high school. This gave me time to ponder the ineffable mystery of why girls kept butting into boys’ business. I mean, didn’t they have their own friends and stuff?

    I understood girls’ interest in boys as being based on social expectations and a desire for status. Those silly girls had watched Cinderella one too many times, or were putting on airs by aping the coupling behavior of adults. I couldn’t imagine why else girls would want to have anything to do with us, or vice versa. Sure, I had heard that “girls mature earlier than boys;” that meant that they settled down and got serious about their schoolwork, right?

    My worldly understanding of these matters had been greatly aided by early exposure to Jane Austin. From her I had gleaned that unmarried women (and their mothers) generally cared nothing about men as individuals, but merely as potential meal tickets and status enhancers. Valiant young men were expected to brave terrors such as going to dances with women, all the while steeling themselves against sycophantic praise designed to lure them into marriage. Yet, inexplicably, they nearly all succumbed in the end. This baffled me, but lots of things did (and still do.)

    Forewarned and forearmed with the knowledge that predatory girls were all around, regarding me a prey, I entered puberty.

    - – -

    Fast forward a few decades, and my own daughter is off to jr. high school. I’ve gained a new appreciation for the adage “girls mature earlier than boys;” my girl does not suffer from late bloomer syndrome. I have also gained a friend who is rather frank in his discussions of sex (and his choice of movies), and enjoys watching me squirm when my daughter is present. What’s with the puritanical prudishness?

    But it’s not prudish – or not entirely, anyway. I want my daughter to be comfortable with sex. I’m deeply concerned that her early exposure to the topic will convey the idea that sex merely entails a bunch of predators regarding her as prey. And this concern is complicated by the fact that I do believe some people will in fact regard her as sexual prey, and that she should be on guard for this. To be sure, I’m talking about abduction, rape and murder here, not “nice guys” wielding insincere pickup lines.

    So I feel a real tension in the current discussion. It sucks to feel like you’re prey, that you can’t trust other people’s sincerity, that everyone’s trying to sell you something, that it’s hard to trust others to promote your interests. At the same time, that’s the human condition. We all must face this eventually, whether or not sex is involved. My wife has an extensive network of friends. She is always advising them in a manner that addresses my WIFE’s deepest hopes and fears, not the friend’s. My wife speaks with absolute sincerity, and adamantly denies that she lets her own interests influence these discussions. Maybe she’s right. Or maybe she just can’t see it (or acknowledge it to me…).

    Yet can I claim to act any differently? As I noted in another discussion, I cannot help noticing a person’s gender. While I may sincerely strive to extend friendship without regard to sexual attraction, I can’t help but suspect that I’m behaving no differently that my wife, letting my own hopes and fears influence the behavior I extend putatively on others’ behalf.

    - – -

    Based on the prior posts, here’s my most charitable reading of the situation: On the one hand we have our Nice Guy, sincerely striving to strike up a relationship with a woman based on friendship, but also incapable of sublimating his sincere sexual attraction. On the other hand we have the weary woman, perhaps more aware of the Nice Guy’s motives than the Nice Guy is, mad about being placed in the position of rejecting a nice guy. Yet, because the Nice Guy never actually makes any explicit request, she is deprived of the opportunity to resolve the tension, and it festers like a toothache. In the ensuring tension, each party projects their frustrations onto the other – he, to ease the pain of the implicit rejection and sexual frustration; she, to ease the guilt of causing pain to a nice guy. By making the other party into a bit of a villain, they can each derive some comfort in their roles.

    Arguably self-knowledge and a little courage would help the guy, and maybe both parties. But can we really be surprised that not everyone possesses these qualities? Seinfeld explored all kinds of ambiguous social situations: When does food become trash? How far may a finger penetrate a nostril before it violates the prohibition on nose-picking? How long should you keep a greeting card? How long must you keep dating someone after having sex with them to demonstrate that you were not merely interested in sex? And how much knowledge of the opposite sex can we expect of one another? On the woman’s side, Elaine complained about the challenges of seducing a gay man, given that men have had so much more practice working with “that equipment” than women will ever have. On the guy’s side, Jerry remarks during the pilot episode:

    Women know what men want, men know what men want, what do we want? We want women, that’s it! It’s the only thing we know for sure, it really is. We want women. How do we get them? Oh, we don’t know ’bout that; we don’t know. The next step after that … we have no idea. This is why you see men honking car-horns, yelling from construction sites. These are the best ideas we’ve had so far. The car-horn honk – is that a beauty? Have you seen men doing this? What is this? The man is in the car, the woman walks by the front of the car, he honks. E-eeehh, eehhh, eehhh! This man is out of ideas….

    The amazing thing is, that we still get women, don’t we? Men, I mean, men are with women. You see men with women. How are men getting women, many people wonder. Let me tell you a little bit about our organization. Wherever women are, we have a man working on the situation right now. Now, he may not be our best man, okay, we have a lot of areas to cover, but someone from our staff is on the scene. That’s why, I think, men get frustrated, when we see women reading articles, like “Where to meet men.” We’re here! We’re everywhere! We’re honking our horns to serve you better!

    Seinfeld, “The Seinfeld Chronicles” (7/5/89)

  2. 402
    donna darko says:

    i’ve never been with an abusive guy.

    the women who go out with abusive guys probably had abusive fathers and they’re hardly the norm.

  3. 403
    LarryFromExile says:

    I think there are several misunderstandings (some possibly intentional) in this thread lately.

    1. Maybe some folks are projecting here by accusing others of this, but I don’t feel “entitled” to everything that I want. You can want and even pursue someone/something without feeling “entitled” to them/it.

    2. When a “Nice guy” describes another guy as being an “asshole” to a girl its not that he is necessarily physically abusive, but that he is acting arrogant and/or crude. Instead of putting the girl on a pedestal (like many boys are wrongly taught to do at a young age) he constantly gives her shit and not always in a playful way.

    I think “Nice Guys” refer to this kind of guy as an “asshole” (or “jerk” etc) because if a guy did that to another guy it would probably escalate into either a departure or a physical fight. Many women, however, have an entirely different reaction and that causes some confusion for the “Nice Guy”.

    3. I doubt this will go over well here, but IMHO (and with all the caveats that come with generalizing people: exceptions and degrees) what women say they want in a man and what they emotionally respond to can be very different. That’s not an original observation, but I haven’t seen anyone mention it yet.

  4. 404
    donna darko says:

    women in their twenties who are dating and not settling down may look at other factors like attractiveness. you can be a nice guy, not an asshole or even a jerk, but unattractive and boring.

    if you’re nice, upstanding, not an asshole or a jerk, attractive with a decent career there’s no reason you shouldn’t be married and maybe even have one kid.

  5. 405
    Crys T says:

    My worldly understanding of these matters had been greatly aided by early exposure to Jane Austin. From her I had gleaned that unmarried women (and their mothers) generally cared nothing about men as individuals, but merely as potential meal tickets and status enhancers.

    Yikes, you really didn’t get Jane’s writing, did you? And you also neglect to say that the reason middle- and upper-class women needed men as status enhancers was because they had no options at the time to earn their own status, and the reason they needed men as “meal tickets” was because they were prohibited from earning their own livings. And you didn’t get the social criticism Jane was making of all this, apparently.

    When a “Nice guy” describes another guy as being an “asshole” to a girl its not that he is necessarily physically abusive, but that he is acting arrogant and/or crude. Instead of putting the girl on a pedestal (like many boys are wrongly taught to do at a young age) he constantly gives her shit and not always in a playful way.

    That’s one way to interpret it, but I think that, given that so many men apparently fall into the “asshole” category for Nice Guys (according to LB, any man that actually manages to go out with a woman is one), the Nice Guy definition of “asshole” is any man who gets positive female attention. The logic seems to go, “All women are masochistic and only like guys who treat them like shit. Woman Y likes Guy X. Therefore, Guy X treats Woman Y like shit.”

    Of course, this does not deny the existence of women (SOME women, by no means all) who for a number of reasons (psychological/self-esteem, cultural training, etc.) may tolerate shitty treatment from the men in their lives. But this does not automatically mean that being a pig gets you chicks. It also does not mean–and this is something that apparently has never occurred to any of you Nice Guys–that the guy who sometimes acts shitty in public doesn’t get all soppy and gooey and cuddly-Baby Bear in private (not that this excuses public shittiness by any means–in fact, it’s manipulative as hell–but it does give at least a partial explanation of why the women in question put up with the public shit).

    It’s really telling that the Nice Guys posting here are incapable of even imagining heterosexual relationships based on respect and friendship. I actually feel sorry for them in a way.

    And, going back to some of the earlier posts: can we PLEASE stop EVER using that asisnine term “alpha male” in relation to human behaviour? It’s stupid as shit and does not apply. Because for a start, as far as I know, amongst those animals who do live in packs/groups where there are alpha males, there is normally only one at a time. How the hell could that apply to humans? Where have you ever seen any community other than some weirdo extremist cult where only one male was allowed to mate? And what the holy fuck would be the boundary of the “group” the supposed alpha male rules over? The office? The street he lives on? The town? Come on, it’s total bullshit.

    And anyway, if it were true, and humans did function on that system, all the Nice Guy whining would be even more useless and illogical than it already is (hard as that is to envision), because there would only BE one male in any given group who could mate anyhow, so ALL men but him would be left out. The only possible thing to whine about would be, “How come I’m not the alpha male?”

  6. 406
    mythago says:

    Larry, you know the old saying that the definition of “asshole” is a guy who’s dating the girl you wish you were fucking.

    what women say they want in a man and what they emotionally respond to can be very different

    What men say they want in a woman and what they emotionally respond to can be very different. What’s your point?

    LB, if you don’t understand why such things as referring to your female friends as a “harem”, or insisting that misogynistic men are all getting laid all the time, would be offensive and stupid, then you really aren’t here to offer your thoughts; you’re petulantly arguing that you’re the only one allowed to have an opinion, and everyone else needs to STFU.

    Hint: if that attitude is one you hold in real life, your difficulty in getting laid is not that the bitches and hos love bad boys.

  7. 407
    nobody.really says:

    Intriguing talk at the 2007 American Psychological Assoc. mtg., emphasizing the differences between men and women. Among the implications for this discussion:

    1. The majority of men don’t reproduce; the majority of women do. To the extent that we can analogize between reproducing and having sex, this implies that there are systemic dynamics resulting in more men experiencing sexual frustration than women. No doubt the behavior of individual guys contribute to their individual failures to attract sex partners, just as the behavior of individual black men contribute to their failure to find employment. But when I find large statistical disparities from what mere chance would predict, it suggests that dynamics are at work transcending individual behavior.

    2. On average, men want sex more, want sex more often, think about sex more, want more different sex partners, masturbate more, and risk more for sex than women. Again, the propensity for male sexual frustration (and female sexual fatigue) seems systemic, not merely the function of individual men (or women). (Arguably homosexuality would adaptive here?)

  8. 408
    KellyMac says:

    Help me out here, though. You say that the “Nice Guy”, by acting nice and not saying what he wants, has no right to expect her to respond to him. Fair enough. No fair expecting her to read his mind.

    But what is he supposed to do? If he tells her he’s interested in her, she immediately becomes an “object”.

    You explain why what he is doing doesn’t work. But you don’t say what will work. What IS the right approach?

  9. 409
    mythago says:

    If he tells her he’s interested in her, she immediately becomes an “object”.

    What? You mean there’s a puff of smoke and she turns into an end table?

    Oh, I see–you were setting up a false dichotomy to pretend that feminists are setting up a no-win situation for the poor Nice Guy, who might as well be a manipulative asshole for all the help the bitches are giving him. My bad.

    nobody.really, thanks for the link–it’s one of the silliest things on the Web I’ve seen in a while. (At least, it’s better to assume the author is silly and clueless than to assume he’s deliberately and maliciously lying about feminist theory and is willfully ignorant of what ‘patriarchy’ means.)

  10. 410
    donna darko says:

    Men are not entitled to women. Are women entitled to husbands? Feminists are not responsible for providing dating advice.

  11. 411
    donna darko says:

    This thread is about Nice Guys not nice guys.

    Are progressives like Atrios, good humanitarians that they are, responsible for giving dating or marriage advice to tomboys and plain women?

    Feminists discuss relationships but only in terms of what is not oppressive and what is equal and just.

  12. 412
    KellyMac says:

    “Oh, I see–you were setting up a false dichotomy to pretend that feminists are setting up a no-win situation for the poor Nice Guy, who might as well be a manipulative asshole for all the help the bitches are giving him. My bad.”

    Not at all. I was quoting from the original article with that statement – “The use of the word ‘object’ isn’t accidental.” It was an honest question. How does a man approach a feminist woman without putting his foot in it?

  13. 413
    donna darko says:

    Treat women like human beings, or, if these men lack imagination, like men.

  14. 414
    blogcommenter says:

    “nobody.really Writes:

    Intriguing talk at the 2007 American Psychological Assoc. mtg… 1. The majority of men don’t reproduce; the majority of women do. ”

    You’re misreading that. The majority of men don’t successfully produce offspring that in turn reproduce offspring… etc such that their descendants survive today. The majority do however, pass their genes on to the next generation.

    On a related note it would be interesting to know how those figures compare to the same stats for, say, bonobos.

    “mythago Writes:

    nobody.really, thanks for the link–it’s one of the silliest things on the Web I’ve seen in a while. (At least, it’s better to assume the author is silly and clueless than to assume he’s deliberately and maliciously lying about feminist theory and is willfully ignorant of what ‘patriarchy’ means.)”

    I count six mentions of the patriarchy, most in passing. What did you find so silly about the article?

  15. 415
    KellyMac says:

    I promise, I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, but if he were to approach her like a man, that would hardly show he was attracted to her. Unless we’re talking about gay men.

    If a man is interested in you, it’s sex that he’s thinking about. This is true even for feminist men. I don’t see that as a bad thing. It’s how the human race perpetuates itself.

  16. 416
    donna darko says:

    Treat her with the same amount of respect you give a man. As an equal. No more, no less.

  17. 417
    KellyMac says:

    On that, we can agree.

  18. 418
    cloaca says:

    Crys T Writes:
    August 21st, 2007 at 8:17 am

    And BTW, the extreme ugliness of the whole Bad Boys “snatching” the nice girls “out from under” the Nice Guys has just struck me: if it weren’t abundantly clear already that Nice Guys don’t see women as fully human and not as prizes or possessions, it’d certainly be crystal clear now.

    …if people didn’t care about the past sexual history of their partners, the world would have more instances of VD (and maybe even less children).

  19. 419
    cloaca says:

    You explain why what he is doing doesn’t work. But you don’t say what will work. What IS the right approach?

    …I’m waiting for the answer to KellyMac’s question.
    The whole world is waiting.

  20. 420
    cloaca says:

    You can spot the women who use nice guys, they’re the ones who don’t ever want to hear or reply to the question: “Now, I’ve done a lot of things for you so far, for absolutely nothing, before I do this, I’d like to ask you what are you willing to do for me?”(Said to a girl who called me one of her ‘best friends’, picked my brain to help her with her essays, then asked me to install Windows Vista and Office 2007 for her for free).

    If you’re lucky they show their true colours by saying “You’re such an expert, you MUST help me” or “Prove you’re such an expert by doing this for me” or “You musn’t be so immature, prove your maturity by allowing me to exploit you”(haha)

  21. 421
    cloaca says:

    By the way, I did ask her if we were dating when we went out, she became absolutely defensive and said she found me to be “just a friend”. Her constant displays of disrespect and entitlement turned this friend into an “acquaintance”.

  22. 422
    mythago says:

    KellyMac, I’m really not understanding your question. You seem to be under the impression that being sexually interested in a woman means you have to treat her like an object.

    I count six mentions of the patriarchy, most in passing. What did you find so silly about the article?

    Patriarchy is a ‘conspiracy’ by men against women, the Oh My God So Novel! observation that patriarchy oppresses men too, the rhapsodic homage to poor Larry Summers, the flat-out lack of a basic understanding of evolution….oh, and the “most men don’t reproduce” claim that nobody.really echoes is actually a misstatement of one of the speaker’s points.

    1. The “recent research” is about men historically reproducing. Even if we accept the argument as absolutely true, the speaker is talking about our ancestors. nobody.really and blogposter distort this into the present, claiming that most men “do not” reproduce.

    2. No sources are cited by the speaker, of course. “Studies” and “recent research” prove everything! None of them seem to be his, though, as Dr. Baumeister’s bibiography isn’t much about evolutionary psychology.

    The guy could have walked onto the stage, shouted “Vive le difference!” and saved everybody some time. It would have been equally factual.

  23. 423
    blogcommenter says:

    ” The “recent research” is about men historically reproducing. (…)the speaker is talking about our ancestors. nobody.really and blogposter distort this into the present, claiming that most men “do not” reproduce.”

    No I don’t claim that. Like you said, nobody.really misstated that, and I pointed that out.

    (Although, ahem, ‘a study’ I heard of the other year found that this seems to be true of norwegian men in their forties, and in that case they didn’t take thousands of years but just one generation to get out of the gene pool. But then again, that might have more to do with, say, the norwegians wearing little rubber devices on their John Thomases than with sociobiology.)

    Also, “LA difference.”

  24. 424
    Mandolin says:

    Cloaca,

    If she had said “I’ll edit your term paper,” would that have been an acceptable answer?

    If the only answer you were looking for was “I’ll spread my legs for you,” then you have behaved like an asshole.

  25. 425
    mythago says:

    cloaca, if you were hoping somebody would catch the misogyny of your handle, cheers; your cleverness is noted.

    I doubt “the whole world is waiting” to hear what’s already been said; treat women like people, not like exotic, talking life-support systems for pussy.

    Also, “LA difference.”

    He could have said that too. ;)

  26. 426
    KellyMac says:

    mythago Writes:
    August 26th, 2007 at 8:47 am

    KellyMac, I’m really not understanding your question. You seem to be under the impression that being sexually interested in a woman means you have to treat her like an object.

    I said nothing of the kind. I was quoting from the original article that said that when a man is sexually interested in a woman, she becomes “the object of their desire. The use of the word ‘object’ isn’t accidental.”

    Because of the atmosphere in which we live (at least here in the U.S.), when a “Nice Guy” is interested in a woman, he approaches her with caution, if at all, and tries to be nice and friendly with her, always careful not to let her know he is interested in her sexually, for fear she will be offended that he is treating her like an “object”. Or, as mythago termed it, a “walking life-support system for pussy”.

    He is then relegated to the “friend zone”.

    A different kind of guy won’t care if he offends her or not; he truly is after only pussy. And, if he looks a certain way, that is perfectly acceptable to her. She sees it as a flirtation, or a challenge, and perhaps it is. Being a woman, I understand that.

    After I read this statement in the original post, “The specific male quandary you’ve described stems from a belief that by hanging around and being “nice,” a man is entitled to female affection “ , is the reason I posed my question.

    If “it’s not because women don’t dig actual kindness” , then why wouldn’t she respond with affection, or at least kindness, if a man is nice and friendly with her? What would be a better approach for the average guy with the average income? Or the guy who treats her with respect?

    Surely you can understand the confusion?

  27. 427
    mythago says:

    What would be a better approach for the average guy with the average income? Or the guy who treats her with respect?

    Are you asking this in earnest? Because it seems as though you’ve carefully constructed a fail-safe system already: women are all shallow, stupid creatures who are happy to accept abuse as long as the abuser is cute, rich or preferably both; decent men can’t hope for love or sex because of feminine perfidy.

    It doesn’t really improve your chances any, but it is a very soothing tonic for the ego.

    If you really are asking in earnest, you might look around you and note that many nice, average-looking, average-earning men do in fact have sex and find love. Why do you think that is?

    One suggestion is that it is because these men comprehend the difference betwen being attracted to a woman (even, if you can credit it, wanting to have sex with her), and seeing her as a sort of intelligent sex dispenser: on presentation of Nice Guy behavior and an offer of romantic interest, the man is owed whatever level of physical and/or emotional response he pleases. A woman who so fails to respond is cheating, just like you’ve been cheated if you put your money in a vending machine and the bag of Fritos gets stuck in the door flap.

  28. 428
    cloaca says:

    [Mandolin writes:

    I have no regular internet access until Thursday, so today it's low-bandwidth kittens!

    Here is an adorable picture of a kitten trying to ride a bike!]

  29. 429
    cloaca says:

    [A kitten sniffing fearfully after a baby bunny!]

  30. 430
    cloaca says:

    “I’ll edit your term paper,”

    Sorry, doesn’t work that way Mandolin.
    She’s in Social Sciences, I’m in the numerical Sciences.
    So there is no ‘term paper’ to edit, as you say.

    [Kittens permit this comment, though they are staring at the camera with luminous, sorrowful eyes.]

  31. 431
    cloaca says:

    [This comment was a repeat! So, kitten sniffing after bunny again.]

  32. 432
    cloaca says:

    [This kitten is doing kung fu! Pow! Bop!]

  33. 433
    cloaca says:

    Waiting for the ad hominem attacks.
    Or you to disqualify my opinion because I don’t know anything.
    Come on, don’t disappoint me!

    [This comment is too predictable to delete. The reader would have to make it up in hir head, and be deprived of the amusement of the actual words.

    However, it would be disappointing not to have one final kitten -- so here's one playing with a stuffed owl and a little toy boat. Someone's photoshopped the ocean into the background! Why, it's the owl and the pussycat! How cute.]

  34. 434
    Mandolin says:

    Cloaca,

    You have not been ad hominemed, but you have now ad hominemed both Mythago and I. You are banned from posting here. Do not attempt to post on this blog again.

  35. 435
    mythago says:

    ooo, kittens!

  36. 436
    Donna Darko says:

    kellymac, nice with average income? how about my comment number 404? nice, average income and attractive. a man needs to be attractive in some way and, even so, there’s no guarantee.

    if we go with the evolutionary argument that men have to have sex and women have to have security, are nice women with average looks entitled to rich husbands? only 49% of adult american women are married so, obviously, no.

    you need a different paradigm of sex. instead of the vending machine model, use the mutual enjoyment model.

  37. 437
    SarahMC says:

    There is no “one way to get a woman.” Women are individuals. What works for woman 1 might not work for woman 2.
    Did it ever occur to any of you Nice Guys that there are plenty of lonely, “nice” women out there who have trouble finding partners? Who might really like to date you if only you paid any attention to women who don’t look like models? Men aren’t the only people who suffer rejection.

  38. 438
    Eliza says:

    With the exception of asexual men and women, both men and women are interested in sex — first step to getting beyond the Nice Guy (TM) or asshole status is to reject sexist gender stereotypes. Now, there are both men and women who are interested in sex for the sake of sex, no particular interest in a relationship. Assholes and Nice Guys (TM) will view women as “objects of desire” — something that must be manipulated to get to the “prize” (i.e. sex). Men who are genuinely nice will respect women, treat women as individuals, and be honest about their desires — both their desire for a sexual relationship (short term or long term) and the lack of desire for a romantic relationship. These men will understand that not all women are interested in merely a sexual relationship or that not all women will want a sexual relationship with him, in particular. They do not get pissed at the woman for rejecting him. They might feel “bummed,” but they won’t start blaming others for their lack of sex at that moment.

    Of course, just like women, not all men are only interested in a sexual relationship. That doesn’t mean that these men aren’t interested in sex. Most men, just as most women, are interested in sex. They simply want to include the sex in a loving emotional/romantic relationship. For this, they will seek women who they feel are not only sexually attractive, but will be intellectually stimulating, fun to be with, and who they genuinely want to be around — even when they are not having sex. Again, the assholes and the Nice Guys (TM) will see the need to manipulate women into these relationships, because they do not view women as human and/or equals. They think they have to pretend to be their friend (with no interest in sex). The men who are genuinely nice will be open and honest about their interests. And, yeah, they’ll get rejected along the way — maybe the woman simply isn’t attracted to him; or maybe she’s only interested in sex and doesn’t want a relationship. Either way, the man will not blame the woman, but will simply continue on.

    In both of these cases, the men who are genuinely nice may or may not try to remain friends with these women. Again, it will a friendship based on honesty and respect. They will not be using the friendship as a way to manipulate her into being a sex object for them. If they are not interested in being “just friends” with the woman, they will be honest about that, too.

    Are there women out there who are more attracted to assholes? Of course. Are there women out there who are shallow and will only date men who are extraordinarily handsome and/or rich? Of course. No one has denied any such thing. There are numerous reasons behind this — maybe they grew up in an abusive home; maybe they bought into the societal norms instilled in women through mass media (certainly reading fairy tales and watching most “chick flicks” women are taught that they great loves of their lives will be the converted assholes and/or the men who stalk them — it’s a sad fact of life). And if those women were here complaining endlessly about their romantic problems, then we’d be addressing those problems. But that’s not the conversation we’re having here.

    Here’s what men have to do, if they actually want to be successful at getting a relationship and not being viewed as either a Nice Guy (TM) or an asshole:

    1) Don’t assume that all women are the same. Don’t assume that there is one “trick” that will work on all women.

    2) Don’t assume that there are “tricks” to getting women.

    3) Be honest about your wants and desires.

    4) View women as human beings, not something to be conquered or manipulated into having a relationship (romantic or sexual) with.

    5) Make friends with women — women who you do not want to be in a relationship with, but who you genuinely enjoy being around, just as you enjoy being around male friends. This will help you learn to be around women and treat them as equals. This will affect the way you treat women, in general, and women you are attracted to, in particular.

    6) If you can’t be friends with women, maybe you should examine that issue.

    7) Don’t hang around misogynist men, or men that seem to be able to do nothing but hang around throwing pity parties for themselves and slamming women. This will affect the way you see and treat women, and will affect the way you treat women.

  39. 439
    Eliza says:

    Oh, and one more thing — yes, there are women who will take advantage of guys willing to do things for them. Sometimes it’s because the women are jerks. Sometimes it’s because it’s just so tempting — you really need help with something, and there’s someone willing to do it for you. Sometimes it’s just because women are naive and actually believe that the men are doing it out of friendship.

    But, it’s been said before — men who do this with the aim of manipulating a woman into sleeping with them or being in a relationship are shooting themselves in the foot. Because most women can see through this in a second. And they might be willing to use you (just as you are willing to use them for sex), but they won’t think of you in a sexual manner for a second. The other problem is that many times women see men like this as lacking in self-confidence, as relying on tricks and manipulations in order to get a woman to like them. This is a huge turn off. Lack of self-confidence is a huge turn off. Lack of assertiveness is a huge turn off.

    Yes, unfortunately, some women will turn to the aggressive guy because she mistakes the aggression for assertiveness. But she’ll never mistake a lack of confidence for assertiveness. Most people (men and women) simply don’t enjoy being around people (men or women) who don’t have self-confidence or assertiveness.

  40. 440
    KellyMac says:

    I think where we differ here, is that you guys seem to think that Nice Guys are out to manipulate you. I know a whole lot of the guys, and that just isn’t the case.

    Anyway, I’m done banging my head against the wall on this subject. Either you aren’t hearing me because your minds are too closed, or I’m not expressing myself well enough. Doesn’t matter. We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

  41. 441
    Eliza says:

    And, for the millionth time, we all recognize that there is a difference between a guy who is nice and a Nice Guy (TM). If you are genuinely a nice guy — one who isn’t into manipulating women into sex and/or a relationship, who views women as equals (sometimes an equal he is sexually and/or romantically interested in, sometimes only interested in as friends, sometimes as a person who he has nothing in common with, but still a human being deserving of basic respect) — then you’re not a Nice Guy (TM), and you shouldn’t be getting all bent out of shape.

    If you do not know how to relate to women as anything other than a piece of pussy and/or something to be attained (even for a “loving” relationship) then you are a Nice Guy (TM). If you are playing games (e.g. doing things you don’t particularly want to do in hopes of getting her to like you; pretending to be her friend in hopes of getting her to have sex with you; pretending you have no interest in her in hopes of getting her to like you), then you ARE using manipulation, and you can either admit or not, but don’t get all huffy when someone calls you on it.

  42. 442
    KellyMac says:

    Two things: First of all, I am a woman. I was just trying to understand your position.

    Second, it seems that our definitions of Nice Guy are not the same. To you, Nice Guy = manipulator to get pussy. To me, Nice Guy = traditional masculine man. So it’s really semantics.

  43. 443
    Eliza says:

    Then, may I refer you to my previous post here

    Once again, for the millionth time, if you want to have a civil and productive conversation, the last thing you should do is jump in towards the middle or end of a conversation, insist on using your own definitions without even bothering to read how the terminology has been defined in the conversation, and then get mad and act as though everyone else is to blame.

    Or, you go to the link that Donna Darko so nicely provided to you (after you entered the conversation) and figure out what people are talking about.

    Again, if you actually want to have a productive discussion, it can only help to bother reading what people are posting and listening to what they are saying, and going by the rules established in the very beginning of a thread, not the ones you want to establish 4 1/2 months later.

  44. 444
    KellyMac says:

    It sounds to me like you’re the only one who’s mad. I’m not mad at all. Or huffy. Or blaming anyone for anything. As I’ve clearly stated several times, I was merely looking for information.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have dinner on the stove.

  45. 445
    Eliza says:

    Of course I’m mad. I’m utterly disgusted with the number of people who show up in this thread (and similar threads) and go on and on about the poor little Nice Guys (TM) (or poor little white men, or whoever it is feminists are “beating up” that day) and absolutely refuse to actually read or listen to what’s already been said. Sheesh!! You want to have a decent conversation — read what’s already been written. If you come in and start berating people for being so hard on the poor little [insert feminist target of the day] without even reading what they’ve actually said, don’t expect them to just bow down and explain everything over and over to you, or to suddenly change their minds, or anything else you thought would happen when you entered this thread. Unless, of course, your goal was to just get feminists pissed off. If so, then you’ve succeeded. Good on you. You must be so proud. Is that what you do for fun?

  46. 446
    mythago says:

    Anyway, I’m done banging my head against the wall on this subject. Either you aren’t hearing me because your minds are too closed, or I’m not expressing myself well enough. Doesn’t matter. We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

    If you announce you’re done with a discussion, and then keep talking, it doesn’t do much for your credibility. Oh, that and running an anti-feminist blog; tends to make your “gee ladies, I just want to help” attitude plain as the concern trolling it is.

  47. 447
    KellyMac says:

    Look, I thought maybe we could have a dialog, where we could maybe exchange viewpoints and learn from each other, or at least I could understand where you were coming from. I’ve never made it a secret that I write an anti-feminist/pro-men’s-rights blog; there’s a spot for me to fill in my website on every post. I wasn’t trying to antagonize you, or make you mad, or set you up. I never went on and on about poor little Nice Guys, and I never berated anyone. How much did you want me to read? The whole website? I did read the original article, and that’s what my questions were about. No, I didn’t read the majority of the comments; I made the assumption, reasonable in my opinion, that at this site there wouldn’t be anyone else who asked you what would be the right approach. If it was covered, then please accept my apology.

    Good grief, how are we all going to get along in this world if we can’t even have a civil discussion on a website? Feminists aren’t going away. Men’s rights advocates aren’t going away. Do we really have to fight a continuous war?

  48. 448
    KellyMac says:

    Dang. Double post. Stupid laptop.

  49. 449
    Mandolin says:

    Kelly, the question was hashed and rehashed over the course of about 300 comments. Please read them before posting again.

    And yes, my patience with you is thin since you claim never to have “made a secret” of your anti-feminist affiliation, when you also posted on a feminist-only thread (specifically having to check a box claiming you were a feminist to do so). Disagreement is fine. Disingenuous argumentation is not appreciated.

  50. 450
    Eliza K says:

    And I made the assumption, reasonable in my opinion, that someone who claims to want to have an actual discussion would actually read — or at least skim — through what’s already been written. I made the assumption, reasonable in my opinion, that someone who claims to want an actual dialog would make some effort to see if their questions have already been asked and/or answered. I made the assumption, reasonable in my opinion, that someone who claims to want an actual dialogue would actually pay attention to the responses they get, in which the responder tries to correct some of your misguided assumptions and beliefs. I make the assumption, reasonable in my opinion, that someone who refuses to do any of those things, and simply relies on assumptions about what people mean and have said already aren’t really there for a dialog.

  51. 451
    mythago says:

    Look, I thought maybe we could have a dialog

    Well, are you done banging your head against a wall or aren’t you?

    Do you want a dialogue, or are you just fishing for aren’t-those-feminists-awful! posts to transfer to your own blog?

  52. 452
    Banana Danna says:

    Donna Darko, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Male attractiveness is the X factor and the elephant in the room. Many Nice Guys (TM) feel that it’s just natural for men to only date women who they find physically attractive, but for women, it’s either presumed to be a cardinal sin or a non-issue. This is preposterous and probably based on cultural indulgence of this fallacy and “othering.” Some women are like Nice Guys (both kinds) wish we all were: men of many types and levels of attractiveness can “grow on them” through common interests, shared experiences, and an ability to “click” personality-wise. However, there are also other kinds of women — I know, I’m one of them. Guys can not “grow on me” if I never found them physically attractive to begin with. We can be friends, but only friends… I can’t be guilted, cajoled, or convinced into becoming the former type of woman, just like the exhortations for Nice Guys to date mice-type women probably fall on deaf ears. In short, women are different, and have differing priorities and interests. Kindness/friendship/money/assholeism isn’t the skeleton key to a woman’s heart, just like sex/food/blonde hair/love potion no. 9 isn’t the skeleton key to a man’s. THERE IS NO SKELETON KEY. When you see girls being picked up by Bad Boys or assholes, it’s (if they’re not assholes of Bad Girls themselves) the same thing as when guys run toward vapid, incompatible “hawt” girls. It’s about looks/sexual attraction… both types of relationships will run out of steam because they’re primarily based on physical attraction. The other end of the spectrum — a relationship with little physical attraction and lots of compatibility — is just as dissatisfying, yet nowhere near as alluring, culturally heralded, or impressive to one’s peer group, so there’s no stampede towards it by boys or girls. It’s just that simple. And if you’re unwilling to pillory men for following their eyes and hormones, then don’t subject women to censure for doing the same, because it smacks of the whole “maidens as exemplars/gatekeepers of morality” thing, and is completely unfair.

  53. 453
    SarahMC says:

    KellyMac, the least you could do is learn the definition of Nice Guys (TM) before you run your mouth on a subject on which you’re ignorant.

  54. 454
    KellyMac says:

    “Kelly, the question was hashed and rehashed over the course of about 300 comments. Please read them before posting again.”

    Read them. It was about what I expected – anyone who disagrees with you can’t get laid.

    “And yes, my patience with you is thin since you claim never to have “made a secret” of your anti-feminist affiliation, when you also posted on a feminist-only thread (specifically having to check a box claiming you were a feminist to do so). Disagreement is fine. Disingenuous argumentation is not appreciated.”

    Yes, I did. I also very clearly stated my stance, left it to the moderator to decide if that was feminism or not, and left it wide open for deletion. How is that disingenuous?

    “someone who claims to want an actual dialogue would actually pay attention to the responses they get, in which the responder tries to correct some of your misguided assumptions and beliefs.”

    Ah. I see. So if I don’t immediately change my “misguided assumptions and beliefs”, I don’t want a dialogue? Sorry, I need a little more than that. Like proof of what you say. I was mildly feminist for years, but when I realized that I had never actually known anyone, including myself, who had been discriminated against for being a female, I realized that my assumptions and beliefs were misguided.

    “Do you want a dialogue, or are you just fishing for aren’t-those-feminists-awful! posts to transfer to your own blog?”

    I have no problem finding plenty of material for my blog. I don’t need to manufacture it by poking a beehive. That’s why I tried to end it by saying we’d have to agree to disagree.

    “KellyMac, the least you could do is learn the definition of Nice Guys (TM) before you run your mouth on a subject on which you’re ignorant.”

    Believe me, I am now very clear on your definition of Nice Guys (TM). I also know how the guys who call themselves Nice Guys (TM) define themselves, and how I define them based on knowing them. There is no resemblance between the two, except that we all agree they have penises.

    By the way, they don’t hate women. What they resent is the way men are treated by our culture, and then that same culture tells them they have all the advantages.

  55. 455
    SarahMC says:

    I am now very clear on your definition of Nice Guys (TM). I also know how the guys who call themselves Nice Guys (TM) define themselves, and how I define them based on knowing them. There is no resemblance between the two, except that we all agree they have penises.

    You still don’t seem to get that there are guys who are genuinely nice, and there are Nice Guys (TM). Guys who are genuinely nice don’t define themselves as “nice guys.” That’s what Nice Guys (TM) do. They find themselves attracted to particular women, who for whatever reason aren’t attracted to them, and they demonize said women for not giving them what they think they deserve.

    Typical Nice Guy (TM): “I walked this drunk girl home from a party, and didn’t rape her! But the next morning she declined my invitation to dinner! But I could have raped her and I didn’t! Women never like nice guys! I might as well just be an asshole and rape women; maybe then I’ll get a date!!”

    By the way, they don’t hate women. What they resent is the way men are treated by our culture, and then that same culture tells them they have all the advantages.

    They resent the fact that they can’t sleep with whomever they want to sleep with. They resent the fact that women are legally permitted to make sexual choices. They’re entitled brats who think they’re owed sex for being “nice.”
    Women don’t get to sleep with whomever they want to sleep with either. They only get to sleep with people who want to sleep with them. Just like men. How men are disadvantaged in this scenario I don’t understand. Women who are genuinely nice don’t always get to date the hunks they’re after either. Do you think this is unfair as well?

  56. 456
    Ampersand says:

    By the way, they don’t hate women. What they resent is the way men are treated by our culture, and then that same culture tells them they have all the advantages.

    Kelly, there are plenty of self-described “nice guys” who explicitly, clearly say that what frustrates them is that even though they’re terrific and kind to women, women prefer men who are abusive jerks.

    Are you claiming that you’ve never, ever heard a guy make that complaint? If so, I have to ask what planet you’re living on.

    And if you have heard some guys make that complaint, why not take them at their word when they say they resent that?

  57. 457
    Donna Darko says:

    well, kellymac, men have structural advantages unless you count the all important child custody as the number one issue which feminists absolutely don’t. women never marched for child custody mkay? women have the very dubious advantage of dropping the bag of chips out of the vending machine and you know how vending machines sometimes don’t drop the lifesavers when you want them? i’ve said this a million times before but men own about 99% of the wealth in the world. this is what happens when society essentializes women and men to divide the labor to move all the wealth to men. we’re left with “nice guys” who treat women like vending machines. it’s not that individual people here are disagreeing and deciding not to give lifesavers. countless reasonable people here have said that the entire paradigm is wrong.

    banana danna, right. in kellymac’s vending machine paradigm, nice guys with average incomes are entitled to sex when there has to be attraction because women are human beings not vending machines. in the essentialist paradigm, nice girls with average looks are entitled to rich husbands but they have to have an x factor too more like a super x times 100 factor. it’s bad enough women are vending machines but a nice girl with average looks has to have a super x times 100 factor to survive. it’s women who should be complaining because they have the raw end of the deal the way things stand. 49% of adult american women are single, not only do they not get security, they only make/own 1% of the wealth in the world.

  58. 458
    SarahMC says:

    You know why there “seems” to be a bias in child custody cases? Because the courts make an effort to maintain the “status quo:” if the mother was the primary caregiver during the marriage (and they usually are), the mother should be the primary caregiver after the marriage dissolves.
    If MRAs are so upset about the supposed “inequality” they should promote stay-at-home fatherhood.

  59. 459
    Yohan says:

    SaraMC, what is YOUR definition of Nice Guy?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_guy
    “Nice guy” is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture for a male with certain personality traits and behaviors. The term is ambiguous, and means different things to different people.

  60. 460
    SarahMC says:

    Yohan, have you not noticed the distinction being made between nice guys and Nice Guy (TM)? Because in the feminist blogosphere, Nice Guy (TM) is pretty specific.
    Definition of Nice Guy (TM)
    You have to scroll just a bit.

  61. 461
    Yohan says:

    SaraMC – #455
    Typical Nice Guy (TM): “I walked this drunk girl home from a party, and didn’t rape her! But the next morning she declined my invitation to dinner! But I could have raped her and I didn’t!

    —————————————————
    I disagree to this definition.
    I do not think, this is the correct description of a ‘Nice Guy’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_guy
    Herold & Millhausen (1999) claim that “while nice guys may not be competitive in terms of numbers of sexual partners, they tend to be more successful with respect to longer-term, committed relationships.”
    —–
    I personally think, there is no clear definition about this term ‘nice guy’ – and I have never seen a clear definition about a ‘nice girl’ either.

  62. 462
    SarahMC says:

    OK then. Remain willfully ignorant and insist that a phrase coined by feminists in the blogosphere does not, in fact, exist. Keep spitting wikipedia references at us, as though that has anything to do with Nice Guy (TM) as defined for you in the Feminism 101 blog. Just because capitalized and TM Nice Guy sounds like “nice guy” doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

  63. 463
    mythago says:

    That’s why I tried to end it by saying we’d have to agree to disagree.

    You don’t “try to end” a discussion by continuing to participate. If you want to stop talking about it, stop talking about it. Exit-line-with-followup isn’t an exit line.

    The “nice guys” with the TM symbol is not referring to men who behave decently; it’s referring to men who adopt a passive or faux-nice demeanor as a perceived successful alternative to macho assholery, and who get enraged that the Nice Guy strategy doesn’t work.

    I’ve noticed, by the way, that both here and at your blog you conflate “privilege and benefits” with “all of the advantages”. Of course women get some benefits under patriarchy. Not-all != most, best.

  64. 464
    SarahMC says:

    Oh, and your Herold & Millhausen definition is of nice guys, not Nice Guys (TM).

  65. 465
    SarahMC says:

    “Of course women get some benefits under patriarchy.”

    And mythago, those perceived “benefits” usually come at a cost. Some might say, “But under patriarchy, women don’t have to pay on dates!” Yeah, and as a result, men feel they’re owed something when they treat women to dinner (or a movie, or a ball game…). It’s not like women get any “benefits” for free. They come at a cost, usually the cost of personal or sexual autonomy. I’ll pass.

  66. 466
    Yohan says:

    >donna darko Writes:
    >Donna Darko posting 404
    >August 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
    >women in their twenties who are dating and not settling down may look at other >factors like attractiveness. you can be a nice guy, not an asshole or even a jerk, >but unattractive and boring.
    >if you’re nice, upstanding, not an asshole or a jerk, attractive with a decent >career there’s no reason you shouldn’t be married and maybe even have one kid.

    Reading this statement, I think, you are asking too much from most men – you expect too much from men…he should be a nice guy, not an asshole, no jerk, and even if he is or is not, he should not be unattractive, not boring…and…and…

    If a woman really finds such a man, I see no reason why he should marry. Why should he? What will be given to this man in return, if he accepts marriage? He will find many women, who want to be with him.

    I think, there is no clear answer to such questions anyway, but to look for ‘Mr. Perfect Dream’ does not make much sense – women are also not always presenting ‘Miss Perfect Dream’. Some more tolerance and less expectations on both sides might be helpful.

  67. 467
    Donna Darko says:

    If MRAs are so upset about the supposed “inequality” they should promote stay-at-home fatherhood.

    sarahmc,

    this is what i’ve been saying that no one else has been saying.

    yohan,

    i checked and see you haven’t participated on this thread until the 459th comment. you have to read the previous 458 comments before commenting in this thread because i don’t think you’re a feminist.

    you didn’t read the last twenty comments carefully which would have answered all your questions.

    you should head to the heartless bitches website because you don’t deserve us fine feminists explaining our last twenty comments to you.

    you’re a troll.

  68. 468
    LarryFromExile says:

    Don’t assume that all women are the same. Don’t assume that there is one “trick” that will work on all women.
    Don’t assume that there are “tricks” to getting women.

    I have been watching that pickup artist show on VH1 and the concept is absolutely fascinating: Take some socially awkward geeks, teach them some theory and methods (“tricks”) to get women attracted to them. The first episode they were sent into a bar and told to approach women and be themselves. They were all horribly rejected, some of the guys were crying, it was pathetic. A few lessons later and most of them are doing much better approaching, being accepted, and interacting with women.

    So just for the sake of discussion lets assume that there are indeed “tricks” to getting women to like you. Of course, not all women, but say something like 70% of women that go clubbing. Would it be unethical to use such tricks? As I mentioned above, would it be much different than “tricks” women use to attract men? (make-up, sexy clothing, laughing at jokes, etc)

  69. 469
    joe says:

    What were the ‘tricks’? making eye contact? Asking questions about things that might interest them and than listening to the answers? Not staring at cleavage? Staying relaxed and confident? Keeping enough distance not to make people uncomfortable?

  70. 470
    Donna Darko says:

    5,000 or 160,000 years of patriarchy isn’t enough to tilt the game in your favor? a tiny bit of female agency too much for you to handle? yes, we women hold all the cards.

    pathetic.

  71. 471
    KellyMac says:

    What patriarchy?

  72. 472
    yohan says:

    Donna Darka, comment 404 and 467

    To answer your question, I am not a feminist and I am not a troll.
    I did not read all and everything in this thread, which I think, is by far too long. A new thread should be created about this topic, but this is up to the administrator. This thread here is getting confusing…

    I myself as a non-American man and not living in the USA find your criteria (comment 404) how to choose a man highly strange and it is no surprise for me, that US-citizens do have a certain communication problem among themselves.

    What you are doing as American woman is to judge a man solely on his surface – according to your comment 404 a man should not be boring and not be unattractive…How do you measure that? This is a valid reason to reject a man from the first beginning on?

    In the country I am living, a woman seriously interested into a long term relationship would look much deeper – for example by asking a man how many hours he is working per day and how long he has regular employment, asking him if he has a criminal record and if his new car is paid already…

    If you ask and LISTEN carefully, you will realize soon, that the unattractive and boring man is not a great entertainer, but at least honest and willing to work.

    ———–

    Comment 468, LarryFromExile,
    If a girl checks about her man carefully, is modest and not expecting too much, pick-up artist technique will NOT work.

  73. 473
    Mandolin says:

    Kelly,

    Do you genuinely not know what a patriarchy is? If not, please check out the feminism 101 blog, which I’m sure someone will provide you a link to.

    Do you know what the patriarchy is and choose to dispute its existence? Fine. Do it somewhere else, not in this thread.

  74. 474
    mythago says:

    This is a valid reason to reject a man from the first beginning on

    What a weird concept. Women aren’t allowed to reject men unless they have a reason you think is appropriate? And yes, “bores me” and “I am not attracted to them” is a perfectly valid reason for either a woman or a man to decide not to pursue a relationship.

    Larry, relying on a packaged, heavily-edited video show for dating tips is not what I’d consider sound advice.

  75. 475
    LarryFromExile says:

    Mythago

    Larry, relying on a packaged, heavily-edited video show for dating tips is not what I’d consider sound advice.

    Possibly. It could be faked, or even tilted to favor the host or an outcome. Or it could also work, or semi-work. I just found the whole concept very interesting. What if? Geeky engineers the world over would giggle-sniff with glee and hope.

    Anyway, I have been reading about it and the host of the show on the internet. Apparently there is a whole “seduction” sub-culture community where they share techniques, openers, dialogs, and routines, etc. They have a whole language that they use talking to each other: “In A3 when you DHV and get three IOIs you can move to C1.” which supposedly translates to something like: When you demonstrate higher value and receive three indicators of interest you can move from the attraction phase 3 to the comfort building phase 1. whatever.

    I ordered a book called “the game” from amazon that apparently tells the story of the rise of this guy and the community he and others founded. Being married I can’t try it out, but it is fascinating enough to read since I can somewhat relate to those shy nerdy socially awkward guys and some of the things they are going through.

  76. 476
    donna darko says:

    Yohan,

    You and kellymac were MRAs on Hugo’s blog last year and you live in Asia with your mail order bride. You live the vending machine paradigm.

    Feminists don’t see life the same way as you so you should agree to disagree like kellymac has although she won’t stop talking.

  77. 477
    sylphhead says:

    To LB (if you’re still here) and like-minded ilk,

    From my experience, I highly doubt that women actively select for jerks, abusive or otherwise. What they do is actively filter out needy, insecure, and fawning types. If jerks and assholes are underrepresented among those that match these descriptions, they’ll be overrepresented among those that women pair up with. Regular, un-assholey confident guys will also be overrepresented, and probably more so; the former stick out in your mind merely because they violate all the principles you’ve internalized about women, which is to hold them on a pedestal. Don’t. It serves no one.

    Self-confidence presents a bit of a catch-22, I know. You have to build it up if you weren’t born with it – and at least when it comes to women, I wasn’t – but ‘practicing’ it in an uncontrolled environment might just end up shredding it even further. Try it someplace safer, such as with female friends. It will probably work better if you don’t tell them what you’re up to, as most friends, understandably, will try to spare your feelings if they do; brutal honesty is what you want. But also understandably, you may find it a wee bit manipulative if you don’t tell them.

    Actually, I should back up here a bit. The point behind trying it with your friends is that you don’t take it personally if the responses aren’t what you’re looking for. But I suspect that the average clueless ‘nice guy’ will do just that; not because he’s a horrible person, not because he feels he’s entitled to positive responses or dating or sex or what have you, but simply because his self confidence is so low that he bases his entire self worth on how the next oxygen-breathing bilaterally symmetrical human female ‘sees’ him. So first things first: stop that. Even good looking, assertive, and attractive guys misfire all the time with women.

    Discussion hasn’t crept up around it so much, but I’d like to go into a bit about Pick Up Artists and the so-called Seduction Community. (I made the assumption that all the allusions toward ‘tricks’ and ‘techniques’ that have been made were sidelong glares of disapproval at this sort of thing. Correct me if I’m wrong.) I’ve done my research on it, and I found it lacking in many ways, from the pre-occupation with the bar scene to the seedy looking infomercial-style web layouts. I also found much of what they had to say very potentially beneficial to many men – and most of the ‘tricks’ taught are merely confidence building exercises. For instance, I found this one bitty that was remarkably insightful: when you feel you’ve run out of things to say, rather than searching for more questions a la some awkward interviewer, tell a short anecdote or story about yourself. You’ll be more comfortable, it’ll fill embarrassing seconds of silence, and lead to further conversation down the road, including the possibility that *she’ll* start to ask *you* questions about yourself – LB or LB look-alikes, try this if you haven’t already. That’s whenever you want to be more interesting, not just in a dating/romantic context.

    I haven’t heard of that show, larry, despite watching VH1 quite frequently. If what you say is true, it sounds exactly like the sort of help those guys need.

  78. 478
    Ampersand says:

    I think this thread has become repetitive (to say the least!). Some of the new comments people are adding are great, some less so, but the conversation as a whole seems to me to be going in circles.

    So, with thanks to everyone for participating, I’m closing this thread to further comments.

  79. 479
    la verdad says:

    I agree with the idea that if a man is interested in a woman he should just come out and let her know, instead of pretending to just be her friend.

    However, I disagree with the motivation being assumed. In most cases it isn’t an attempt to manipulate, it’s simple cold feet. Most men (especially younger ones) honestly don’t know how to make a move, and are afraid of rejection. I agree it’s something men must get over, but sometimes that’s easier said than done.