If you haven’t already, check out Leigh Dragoon’s cartoon series about “Nice Guys (TM)” (although she calls them “Nice Guys (R)”).
Last year, Leigh created three of these nifty cartoons: part one (pictured above, but the linked one is bigger), part two, and part three.
This year, Leigh’s doing a new two-pager in the series, written by Lisa Jonte. You can read page one here; I hope she’ll post page two soon.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
Wow, Amp, are you sure you want to go through this again?
Seriously, great cartoons.
Seems like much of the controversy is a result of confusion of the labels “Nice Guy” and “Nice Guy(tm)”. The difference isn’t obvious; perhaps “The Movement(tm)” should have chosen a more distinctive term.
The “movement(tm)” uses that term specifically to point out that many self-proclaimed nice guys are not, in fact, very nice.
This is a great series. I have known way too many guys like this. Leigh and Lisa are TEH AWESOME (as they would say).
The “movement(tm)” uses that term specifically to point out that many self-proclaimed nice guys are not, in fact, very nice.
Right. They are geeks.
Everyone knows that making fun of geeks is great fun.
Except, of course, the geeks.
“So I can demand payment for nice guy services rendered”
This line will have me chuckling for a week.
Sam:
Ok, I read this twice and now I know where you’re coming from. But still, this is entirely non sequitur.
The thing is, anyone who whines “girls only sleep with jerks, not nice guys” is not a nice guy, but is rather a Nice Guy (R). See the key to being nice is not to demand payment for being nice.
I kinda get where this comes from, I went through it myself back in high school, but the thing is, if you think that being nice means you deserve vajayjay points, you’ll end up pissed off and feeling cheated. But stand back and realize that feeling cheated comes from a sense of entitlement than anything else. On the other hand if you’re an overall nice guy and don’t expect to cash in vajayjay points, I’ve found that you can be surprised when people are nice to you in return, even female people. Think on it.
I’ve found that you can be surprised when people are nice to you in return
Agreed.
But that’s sort of my point; it isn’t very pleasant to live in a world where you are genuinely surprised when someone is nice to you, and mostly hope that people will ignore you rather than openly mocking you.
The nice guys ™ I’ve known were looking for the total package. Not just sex but the whole girlfriend/truelove(tm)
Not that it’s any less possessive / controling.
I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen this type of behavior since I was in college. And even than it seemed to go hand in hand with other poor social skills. How common do women find this in guys that are above the age of 25?
Speaking as a female engineer, who spends a great deal of time around *male* engineers, is a member of the school video game club, goes to LAN parties, and is going to a D&D convention at the end of the month…. “Geek” and “Nice Guy(tm)” are *not* synonymous. Really.
You can be as much of a geek, nerd, or dork as you want, or have a general lack of social skills, but if you are friends with a female as an actual *friend*, with all the respect that entails, the same as you would treat a male friend, and not because you want to fuck them, you’re not a “Nice Guy(tm)”. I’ve known both, and there’s a definite difference.
And, yeah, the world you’re describing sucks. I hope you find a better place.
Nothing new. Feminism has always been working hard to reframe pejoratively everything good that could possibly be said about men. This is like the game of Go, or reversi, where the board represents the complete space of possible male behaviors, and the goal of feminists is to maximally confine the area of acceptable male behavioral expression. And so feminists flag the squares of the gameboard with notices saying “hey, if you are here and you think you are an OK person, well, sorry to break the news to you, but you are not really OK, you are OK(TM) (which is codeword for creep), and here’s the elaborate sophistic that explains why”.
Eliza:
You understand the difference between the terms. I understand the difference between the terms. But a socially inept teenage boy probably doesn’t understand the difference between the terms, until they’re explained to him. Since it requires explanation to reach the target audience, it’s probably not doing a very good job at pointing out “that many self-proclaimed nice guys are not, in fact, very nice”.
The distinction between the terms may seem glaringly obvious to you and me, but when you’re 15, lonely, and pumped full of hormones, it ain’t.
What Falynne said, except: SamChevre, the victim posturing is really pathetic. Nobody said that NiceGuysTM are all D&D fans, or that if you play Halo 3 you’re a slimy user.
And funny that you seem to think the women on the receiving end of the NiceGuyTM bullcrap couldn’t possibly be geeks.
It is true that many geeks lack social skills. Lacking social skills is not the same thing as being a selfish asshole.
I know Basta, why is it that those damn feminists keep insisting on being treated with respect and deeming those disrespectful characteristics as a negative. Shit, we should just recognize that men are naturally and biologically incapable of really truly respecting women and embrace being disrespected. Damn!
Note also the NiceGuy(R) #3 strip, which creatively re-employs the seemingly already established NiceGuy(R) meme as a means of shaming men into shutting up and not demanding public attention to men’s issues. This re-employment even ignores the original content of the NiceGuy(R) meme, which was the notion that some guys try to score vajayjay points by pretending to be nice. Sorry ldragoon, but men who speak up about men’s issues wouldn’t even ponder the idea that their actions could score them any points with you or any woman. Men’s issues speakers’ domain of activity doesn’t overlap that of NiceGuys(TM) even by a gnat’s hair. That you despise and fear both is the only thing one has in common with the other, but it doesn’t prevent you from arbitrarily sticking the hateful NiceGuy(TM) label on men’s issues speakers. What encourages you is possibly the observation that so many men seem to be already conditioned to react with hasty retreat upon seeing that label. This reuse of a hostile, sexuality-targetting meme to gag competitors for society’s attention is morally no different from calling sufragettes bitches, and in the long run will prove as futile as the latter.
Speaking as someone who was a bit of a nerd troglodyte and a self-identified Nice Guy (TM) in high school wasn’t the lack of female affection, but that the objects of my interest were interested in guys who were actually Total Jerks (TM). I think a lot of Nice Guys (TM) feel like chumps when they see women swooning over people who are rude, pushy, and disrespectful.
Put it differently — we teach people that the way to win affection is to be kind, considerate, and so forth. But often, men behaving badly are rewarded for it by women. And that causes a lot of cognitive dissonance in people who want to behave properly, but also think that (partial) virtue should be better rewarded than vice.
Wow, congrats amp, you’ve attracted not only a sophist MRA but a Polish one at that*! But as annoying as I find you I have to commend you on your ability to bullshit in English. I mean, seriously, that’s impressive. Certainly better than I can bullshit in Polish.
*I’m pretty sure that ,pl indicates a Polish url. I can’t quite recognize the language.
BASTA!: That’s a pretty twisted reading of #3. The strip is not, by any reasonable interpretation, criticizing demanding public attention for men’s issues. The strip is criticizing the double standard by which men’s issues are “real” issues of universal significance deserving of attention by everyone, whereas women’s issues are special interests that should be placed on the back burner in order to focus on “real” issues.
I do agree, however, that the cartoons — while correctly condemning the things they depict as misogynist — don’t seem to be quite getting at the core of the specific Nice Guy (TM) form of misogyny, i.e. the sense of entitlement to what we’re apparently now calling “vajayjay points.”
Dude, there’s a difference between saying “men’s issues aren’t important” and “stop telling us to not focus on women’s issues.”
If you walk into a feminist discussion on issue X and say “bleh, this isn’t important, you should do something about issue Y (that affects me) instead!”, then you’re being an overentitled asshat. Even if issue Y is perfectly legitimate.
Also, society’s attention isn’t a zero-sum game. We’re not competitors.
NotACookie,
Two problems with your assessment:
(1) the thing is with girls you like being into Total Jerks (TM) is (a) you’re not paying attention to girls you don’t like, and (b) you’re the one judging the Total Jerks (TM) as such, and seeing as you like the girls who are into them, you’re not quite impartial.
(2) you still have the problem of assuming you’re being nice to win affection. It really does only work if you’re being nice out of a wish to be a kind person, not from what you can gain from it.
After writing my last pair of comments I went to take my dog for a long walk where I thought more on this, and realized that the problem with that brings us Nice Guys (R) is one that is central to our society – that is: the view that women do not want sex except for what it gets them. This means that men who want sex with women must trick women into it, earn it through Vajayjay Points, or just outright buying it. There’s no concept that sex can be a mutual thing.
And I have sympathy for men who buy into this, as I fully fell for this in high school, and really am still having trouble in my life due to my internalizing this belief.
Rereading the comic, it’s actually “Vajayjay credit”. Still, brilliant.
Actually, it means he’s written in perl.
NotaCookie – given the choice between a Nice Guy (TM) and a Total Jerk (TM), yeah, most girls and women are going to go for the Total Jerk (TM) — because at least you know what you’re getting with that person and not dealing with an asshat liar with expectations that exceed what they should be.
That said, given the choice been a Nice Guy (TM), a Total Jerk (TM) and a guy who’s actually nice and respectful, most women will take the latter.
You should consider voting for Ron Paul. Ron Paul will eliminate the Federal Reserve, and allow Americans to use whatever standard of currency they like, such as Vajayjay Credit. WOOOOO Ron Paul!
Feminists keep insisting on women being treated with what feminists call respect, and what in reality is worship and eggshels walking. This has grown really grotesque.
When I first learned about ancient Egyptian society in primary school, it was my first ever encounter with a description of a society where one class of people (strictly speaking, one man – the Pharaoh, but that’s not too relevant) deemed themselves so much elevated above the other(s) that the other(s) were expected to engage in elaborate rituals to pay what the elevated class of people demanded as baseline due respect. One of such ritual constraints was that common people were forbidden to even raise their eyes upon the Pharaoh during a procession. It felt so wrong when I heard it that I almost cried, I almost ran out of the classroom (I was about ten at the time).
Why am I testing your patience with this story? Because that history lesson in primary school was what sprang into my mind immediately when I first encountered the “disrespectful male stare” discourse of modern feminism. How the heck must respect be defined for looking at someone to constitute disrespect? It must be defined as worship, as complete deference, as the ultimate “knowing one’s place”.
I think a lot of Nice Guys (TM) feel like chumps when they see women swooning over people who are rude, pushy, and disrespectful.
Raznor said it more eloquently and nicely, but what it comes down to is: the definition of “total jerk” is the guy sleeping with the woman to whom you feel you’re entitled.
Hey Anti-Cookie, dear — I don’t think total jerk requires a trademark or capitalization. It’s not as if there’s people who are just jerks and those who think of themselves as Total Jerks, thus they demand the rewards of being a jerk. Although, now that I think about it, Denis Leary might comprise the entire Total Jerk ™ category, and I have to say I would want to spend an evening with him. It would be more entertaining than, say, dinner with a boy whose only topic of conversation revolves around why the world doesn’t love him more. I’ve been on those dates.
Could it be that Nice Guys feel like chumps because they see an object of affection that is so special and deserving, that he can’t believe she’s seeing someone else who, well, “isn’t as good as himself”? This is described in further detail in the article that accompanies the cartoon — http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html
…righty-o.
Looking at someone isn’t disrespectful, no. Leering at someone as an object, as meat, as not-human, *is*.
Now, part of the whole “male gaze” issue stems from the fact that, in our society, the female figure is provided as an object and as a commodity for the male viewership, and that this is considered normal. “Sex sells” generally (not always, but pretty overwhelmingly… scantily-clad male cheerleaders are where?) refers to the use of the female body as advertising for male consumers. This also ties in to the general writing-off of female consumers as a group.
For example, I’ve heard Top Gun described as “gay”, particularly the volleyball scene, as it features pretty scantily clad men running around for perhaps a gratuitous length of time. Is it “gay”? Only if you assume that the viewers are male.
So, looking at people, attractive people, even just because they’re attractive, isn’t the issue here. It’s that one class of people is expected to be present at all times for the viewing pleasure of another class of people.
Plaid, the issue isn’t that Ms. Special-Deserving is seeing someone who “isn’t as good as himself”. It’s that she is seeing someone who isn’t him. After all, is the Nice Guy (TM) going to be happy if Ms. S-D dumps the jerk and starts dating yet another guy who is a terrific human being?
“Nothing new. Feminism has always been working hard to reframe pejoratively everything good that could possibly be said about men.”
Banned.
Yeah, mythago, I was having a hard time deciding between “him” and “the thought of himself”. I suspect that if I were in that situation and mindset, I would be consciously thinking the competition isn’t as good a specimen as me, the Nice Guy, rather than the competition isn’t me. This is despite the outsider’s observation that the problem is that I am not the one in the relationship.
[You have been banned; stop posting here.]
Alright then, explain how society’s attention IS zero-sum?
I think the feeling like a chump thing can be pretty universal, in the “but how could he/she prefer that to ME?” sense. And that, I think, is pretty normal– I think we can all be forgiven our 15-year-old’s jealousies.
But, NotACookie, when you say,
“Put it differently — we teach people that the way to win affection is to be kind, considerate, and so forth. But often, men behaving badly are rewarded for it by women. And that causes a lot of cognitive dissonance in people who want to behave properly, but also think that (partial) virtue should be better rewarded than vice.”
–that’s kind of the mindset people like me (humorless feminists :0) ) have a problem with. Sex isn’t a reward. Affection isn’t a reward. People pretty much fall for whoever they’re going to fall for, and act accordingly, and to say that women should be collectively rewarding and punishing men for set standards of behavior– well, that’s f***ed up, anyway.
I know you probably didn’t mean quite that. And I think all guys in high school may not be ready to perceive subtleties on that level. But that’s the logical extension (not a very far extension) of the Nice Guy (TM) mentality.
It’s a way of saying women are the moral gatekeepers of society, and that it’s their duty to enforce social standards by screwing the “good” men, and that they’re failing at their duty if they don’t want to screw a particular “good” man. It’s a way of saying that sex is something you can buy for a set (behavioral) price. And it’s saying that the woman who doesn’t make the exchange is backing out of an unspoken contract.
At the most basic level, what Nice Guys (TM) are saying is that they deserve sex whether the woman wants it or not. And even though they may have the social graces not to act on that thought, it’s still not the path to healthy relationships.
[You have been banned, stop posting here.]
[You have been banned, stop posting here.]
Pingback: Pandagon :: The Guide to Nice Guys® in Comic Form :: February :: 2008
Ok, don’t feed the trolls but:
Uuuuuhhhhhhhmmmm, what?
Side note: I’m reading Great Expectations now and reading this thread reminded me what I don’t like about that book. Pip is really the ultimate Nice Guy (TM). “Oh no, how could Estella marry that cad Drummle”. Oy.
It is a finite resource. People will generally donate/lobby/volunteer/rally/boycott to solve what they consider the single most pressing issue, the two most pressing issues, or the three most pressing issues, but seldom more.
Which of course explains the gazillion or so non-profits addressing every issue from unneutered pets to legalization of weed.
Non-starter, Basta.
Oh, it’s not true, but it is a pretty fair statement of how MRAs like Basta think: Anything that detracts from MEMEMEMEMEME is evil and must be stopped.
Raznor, I think the implication they were trying to (ever so wittily) make was that your second point was a Catch-22.
That’s pretty telling to me; there’s a recursive trap in the idea that people should be little-n nice without expecting brownie points in return? To say that is to argue that there’s no difference between being selfless and being a chump. I get pretty cynical myself, sometimes, but ye gods that’s a bit much.
Wow, Polish and makes esoteric literary references, I must say that Basta is the most impressive troll ever.
The thing is that my own experience tells me that it isn’t a Catch 22. If I may switch into anecdote mode, I guess I have to give myself credit in that, although there was a time when the whole Nice Guy (TM) argument had some appeal to me, I never was a Nice Guy (TM) in that I never did nice things for girls I liked with the expectation that I’d cash in for sexual favors. But I can recall one specific incident in high school. There was a girl I liked, but had given up hope with. Then one day there were some people ganging up on her in class and I stuck up for her, amazingly for reasons other than vajayjay credit. But because of this, I ended up going out with her. Once, only once, but we remained friends. Until, you know, I graduated and proceeded to devote my life to forgetting virtually every detail about high school.
I dunno, maybe arrogant assholes get good things at times, but I tend to believe what goes around comes around. If you’re a genuinely nice guy, who does kind things without expecting repayment, people tend to be nice back to you. If you’re an arrogant asshole, then people won’t.
And I feel that I’m going from anecdote mode to stream of consciousness mode, which is probably because I should be going into sleep mode. Still I think most of what I’ve written is relevant so, dammit, I’m clicking the “Submit Comment” button!
“Put it differently — we teach people that the way to win affection is to be kind, considerate, and so forth. But often, men behaving badly are rewarded for it by women. And that causes a lot of cognitive dissonance in people who want to behave properly, but also think that (partial) virtue should be better rewarded than vice.”
But what woman wants to use their genitals as a prize to be handed out to the nicest person? Show of hands? Out of the guys, who feels an overwhelming obligation to reward girls that they’re unattracted to for being nice to them with sex? (Of course, the latter statement complicates things, because niceness is seen as an “extra” behavior for men but a default behavior in women.) The world just doesn’t work that way, because people — in our culture @ least — generally see sex as a mutually rewarding endeavor or a purely selfish one — not as a venue for altruism. Oh, wait. There is a term for that — but does anyone really want to be a “pity f***”? Because if you want sex in exchange for being nice, that’s what you’re asking for.
Wow, BananaDanna, I want to applaud nearly every sentence you wrote. And you bring up a good point:
I would say I’m constantly rewarded for niceness and kindness by people responding likewise. The only people in this discussion who would say otherwise are those who only wish their reward to be hot monkey sex*. Which implies, too, that the only thing of value a man can get from a woman is sex. But, nope, nothing sexist or misogynist about that, no sir.
*monkey being my favorite modifier word for sex
This is actually not true. I think most people have the experience of trying to be decent to someone (of either gender), and feeling taken advantage of. It’s perfectly natural to be bitter about it. They sometimes have this feeling when it isn’t called for — in which case it’s still natural, but based on mistaken beliefs that ought to be corrected.
I want to clarify what I meant by “reward”. A number of commentators have taken this as “something given consciously in response to earned merit”. I didn’t mean that at all — I just meant “a positive consequence of an action”. I think few guys think “women should sleep with me out of a duty to civilization.” However, they take their bearings on how to behave from the behavior they see people (and particularly women) responding positively to. And they see — perhaps mistakenly — that being nice doesn’t reliably get them what they want, and being pushy and aggressive often does.
It was pointed out by a couple people that nerdy and somewhat marginalized high school students don’t have a good perspective on what tactics are effective in winning female affection. The point is well taken, but it doesn’t change the fact that Nice Guys (TM) often perceive themselves as suffering because they’re being “nice” — and this leaves them whining and unhappy.
Yes, yes. The issue of “reward” isn’t about an entitlement to a vagina, or anything like that. It might be easier if we stop using the word “nice” (we should be nice to everyone).
If you offer yourself or offer something (commitment, love, friendship, trust, etc) to another person, the usual hope is that they’ll
1) take it and reciprocate;
2) decline to take it if they know they don’t want to reciprocate.
But as we all know, there are plenty of people who
3) take what you offer and enjoy it without reciprocation.
I think this leads to feelings that the original offeree got screwed over, no matter what the sex of the various parties is. I’m not sure that those “I got screwed over” feelings (aka the “I’ was entitled to better treatment”” feelings) are ideal: in theory, we shouldn’t offer anything we’re not willing to give, right?
But I think it’s also OK to put some responsibility on people who do #3, because I think it’s OK to look at both sides of the transaction.
“But I think it’s also OK to put some responsibility on people who do #3, because I think it’s OK to look at both sides of the transaction.”
Basically, no.
One does nice things for friends, da? Women who respond to niceness with friendship instead of fucking are not doing anything “wrong” or choosing the wrong man or lamentably contributing to the downfall of western society. Therefore, college student A (male) who fixes college student B (female)’s computer, and then whines when she fucks college student C (also male) and then comes to his room afterward to chat about it (an act of friendship) instead of dumping C and retiring to A’s dormroom in featherboa and rhinestone-studded lingerie (an act of vajayjay credit) — is being a douchebag.
Seriously, the amount of male blindness around this particular issue speaks volumes about the problems of the way y’all have been socialized to consider sex.
I also think that this model of the NiceGuy (TM) implies some forethought about the “payback” aspect. How often is this the model?
John is friends with Jane. He and Jane get close. He’s super nice to her, she to him. Sometime they’re physically affectionate–they hug a lot, hold hands, snuggle on couches when they watch movies… Eventually John develops a mad crush on Jane. She, however, falls for a poet. She tells all this to John. John thinks “she’d be better off with me; she should be dating me, not him!”
Do John’s feelings make him a misogynist, or not? Is he a nice guy who wishes his friend would date him? Or is he a NiceGuy(TM?)
Depends. What does he do next? What is the whole context of his attitude and actions?
Does John *think* that or does he spend the next five years whining about it to every beleaguered friend he can find, and does he inform Jane that she’s a manipulative bitch for taking his goods without paying him and refuse to speak to her again while spreading it ’round school that she’s a slut?
Women who respond to niceness with friendship instead of fucking are not doing anything “wrong”
Absolutely agreed.
Women (and men) who respond to niceness with mockery and sneers are in a rather different category.
“Women (and men) who respond to niceness with mockery and sneers are in a rather different category.”
I expect we’re all on the same page there.
Sailorman:
Do you know what’s missing from your scenario? Any communication where John tells Jane how he feels. So, John thinking “Jane should be with me,” is not misogynist, per se, but if he blames her for falling for a poet rather than reading his mind and falling for him, therein lies the problem.
? Are you suggesting he can’t whine about falling in love and getting rejected, for as long as he wants? That seems unlike you; am I misinterpreting this?
This is aggro behavior that I don’t support. Telling her that she “hurt his feelings and he doesn’t want to see her as a friend any more?” Or telling her his honest opinion that she’d be happier with him (which she is free to ignore, laugh at, reject, or otherwise respond to in kind)? Just fine.
Seriously, what is THIS doing in this list? Why on earth should she (drumroll, please…) feel entitled to his friendship, company, communication, or anything above “don’t actively seek me out and be an asshole?”
Inappropriate, no problem there. It’s ALWAYS inappropriate form someone to spread rumors like that, whether it’s Jane spreading rumors that John has herpes, or John doing the same. But this is sort of a non sequitur–is this part of the NiceGuy(TM) model, and if not, why is it relevant?
And (in reverse order:)
Sure, in theory. However, generally speaking the “nice” part is defined by the recipient more than the giver. Would you agree with that?
No, they’re not. They are ALSO not giving the friend what the friend wants. Objective/subjective, right?
SHOULD they give the friend what he wants? No: I don’t think anyone should date/sleep with/etc anyone who they don’t want to. So IMO, anyone who says that Jane “owes” John sex is an idiot.
However, it’s equally ridiculous to say that John shouldn’t be/can’t be/is misogynistic for being “upset,” or for exhibiting this upset. That’s John’s subjective right. He shouldn’t act like an asshole, but I’m deeply uncomfortable with placing severe limitations on his emotional response.
Sure.
And your inability to see the response, apparently at ALL, is equally confusing to me, and to many of us “blind” folks, ya?
In any case, “blindness” is a good word to choose.
I would argue that a true “NiceGuy(TM)” situation only exists when the woman involved is actually blind to the situation. In other words, she thinks he’s a “real” friend, and he’s not.
If she knows? She’s an independent person, and everyone can make their own cost/benefit analysis. You can be friends with a NiceGuy(TM); you can date an alcoholic; you can do anything you want. Life is full of choices. Sometimes you choose to hang out with (or date, or become friends with) people who are less than ideal in your own view.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence here (and in both roles–women aren’t the only sex who have people claim friendship when they’re actually infatuated) and so have my friends both male and female. And I have to say that anecdotally speaking, the VAST majority of times that a friend falls in love, the subject of the crush is well aware of it. They enjoy it. With depressing frequency, they may even take advantage of it: when someone wants to give more than they take, it’s hard for people, especially young people, to say no.
In other words, the NiceGuy(TM) scenarios are not really especially common.
That’s entirely anecdotal, of course. But I’m curious as to whether you agree.
In high school, the guys all the other guys looked up to were Total Jerks (TM). In many cases that really makes one sad, the guys the teachers cut the most slack for were Total Jerks (TM).
The fault is with high school. By having been merely unhappy during those years and not outright traumatized, I’m probably on the right end of the bell curve. Have you ever come across this essay, NotACookie, Sam, et al?
Capitalization and trademark are used often in informal writing to denote things that aren’t actual titles or trademarks, for a variety of reasons. The “this group of people use deception and emotional manipulation for the sex” is one application, but isn’t the only acceptable one. NotACookie’s use of Total Jerks (TM) is perfectly justified in this case, so long as Total Jerks (TM) aren’t the exact same people as total jerks.
So thus, we can justifiably say “Women always end up falling for the Total Jerks (TM)”. Does that rub you the wrong way just a teensy bit? Does it seem in bad faith? Well, perhaps now you see why many of us guys, including me, have a problem with the term Nice Guys (TM) in the sense of “Nice Guys (TM) are bad and disgusting and totally deserve rejection and to spend every Friday night alone”. I don’t care if we’re Left or Right or Pentecostal Christian or Laveyan Satanist, wink-winks and nudge-nudges like that are sure to strike a wrong chord with us.
That story just warms my heart. Give me a moment…
——————————————————————————–
Okay. There has to be mutual attraction for there to be a sexual relationship. Nice acts are, well, nice, but they can’t substitute. I think the issue is that many guys seem to genuinely believe that niceness will/should be reciprocated with sex. We’re all familiar with the trope of the adolescent boy talking about the girl-he-likes-who-doesn’t-like-him-back over family dinner, and his mother telling him to be extra nice to her while showering her with attention. And so begins Junior’s long life of sexual dysfunction.
There was a time and place when that advice would have worked, in my opinion. A hundred years ago, women needed men a lot more than they do today, and I suspect the “pay attention and be nice” strategy killed under this particular power dynamic. This has changed since then, but the way boys are socialized largely has not. Girls are taught from a young age how to attract boys – often against their will, from what I’ve seen. Boys are left to shit in the wind. I remember my own, erm, strategy during adolescence was showboating on the field and accidentally-on-purpose bringing up my *bravely earned* injuries. Yeah, that worked about as well as it sounds.
I’ve brought up mom so far, so in the interest of balancing the equation, here’s what dad’s doing wrong. Something as simple as teaching boys from a young age how to dress and groom properly, some sense of presentation and etiquette, and how to emotionally cope with rejection would work absolute wonders. In fact, it may be all that is needed. But this rarely happens. He assumes that the boys’ romantic situations will more or less take care of themselves, in a world where that assumption no longer holds. Also, having to worry about and go through all that isn’t manly. In which case his boys stand a very good chance by age 25 of being the most manly sufferers of depression and crippling loneliness ever.
However, it’s equally ridiculous to say that John shouldn’t be/can’t be/is misogynistic for being “upset,”
Being sad, upset or lonely because one is in unrequited love is not by itself misogynist. But if John thinks that Jane owes him something (friendship, love, attention) because he fixed her computer or he’s a friend, if he thinks that being “better” than her current male partner entitles him morally to replace that partner? Yeah, he’s an asshole.
I think what you’re trying to get at is a situation where Jane knows that John has romantic feelings towards her, and intentionally manipulates or relies on those feelings so that he’ll fix her computer, stick around and flatter her by mooning around, help her home from the bar when she’s drunk, etc. That’s called being an asshole. We would say the same thing if John were gay. Friends don’t take for selfish purposes and never give back.
What you are saying, though, is that if Jane knows John loves her, she has some kind of obligation to him other than intentionally jacking him around. Sorry: bullshit. It’s not unfair or manipulative for her to remain his friend and try to keep boundaries. It’s not unfair or manipulative for her to date other men knowing John has a crush on her.
Having been on the receiving end of too many Nice Guys(TM) in my younger days: I didn’t enjoy their attentions, I didn’t stay friends because they fawned over me, and I sure as hell didn’t ask them to run errands. We were in the same social circles, for one, so it would have been kind of hard to tell them to get stuffed. And I was still young enough that I didn’t understand the massive sexist self-entitlement of the Nice Guy(TM), or how little respect they had for anything except what they wanted from me.
I would argue that a true “NiceGuy(TM)” situation only exists when the woman involved is actually blind to the situation. In other words, she thinks he’s a “real” friend, and he’s not.
My personal perspective, having interacted with several of these kinds of men, is that it’s when the friendship is offered with ulterior motives. I’ve tried to be careful to not “take advantage”, but that’s made somewhat easier by my being very conscious of the downsides. One, my GM for my rping games (Rifts; I still miss the system) made my characters the focus of all of his NPCs, tried to break up my boyfriend and I, and brought a gun to my house. What really got me is the simple fact that he was never really my friend. Everything he did was a means to an end. Another guy mistook my willingness to frankly discuss sex as an indication I would be willing to, against what I actually said during this discussion, have sex with him upon our first meeting. Again, the main dynamics of the relationship were deceit and unspoken expectations of my behavior even though I was being explicitely clear.
Obviously, neither of these men are my friends any longer, nor did they remain so once it became clear that their expectations made it impossible for us to be friends, since they related to me as a sex/dating vending machine, not a person.
This can get more subtle – insofar as the “women should have sex with men I define as ‘nice’ because sex is a reward, not something women actually want” dynamic – but what ultimately is telling is that the “nice” guys are not actually “nice”. It’s not “nice” (in either the meaning of inoffensive or precise) to offer something overtly with covert expectations. I find those kinds of friendships deeply offensive; essentially the guy is lying to me in order to try to pressure me into letting him use my body, which clearly indicates my body is his main point of interest in me, and not anything else. And indeed, in my experience with these men, they often ignore large portions of my personality and what I say in favor of their illusions about what I, their “future girlfriend/sex partner” is like.
sylphhead,
I had not seen that essay before; thank-you.
I was lucky; I didn’t go to high school. That fact gets a decent amount of the credit for the fact that I’m reasonably sane. But my early 20’s (pre-college and college and immediate post-college) were really bad–partly because in college, I got to play popularity games against people who HAD gone to high school.
Then I got a job in a world of geeks, and all of a sudden I was normal and competent most of the time, instead of a weird outcast.
“Having been on the receiving end of too many Nice Guys(TM) in my younger days: I didn’t enjoy their attentions, I didn’t stay friends because they fawned over me, and I sure as hell didn’t ask them to run errands. We were in the same social circles, for one, so it would have been kind of hard to tell them to get stuffed. And I was still young enough that I didn’t understand the massive sexist self-entitlement of the Nice Guy(TM), or how little respect they had for anything except what they wanted from me.”
Yup.
Well, given the context of the previous friendship, one could argue that John is giving Jane an ultimatum that would qualify as severe emotional manipulation.
The term “entitlement” is horribly misused here, though. Yeah, no one’s entitled to sex. No one is entitled to love, friendship, a fulfilling job, or general peace of mind, either. But I wouldn’t be too hard on someone who expects them in the general sense, and I certainly wouldn’t fault anyone for *wanting* them.
So am I, and that’s the basis for my discomfort with blanket labeling all Nice Guys (TM) as misogynist. Perhaps they are, but that should be reflected in their actions, not their feelings. If their actions don’t reflect their feelings, doesn’t that prove that they actively prevented themselves from acting on them? Isn’t that supposed to be a good thing? It’s a truism here that, for instance, all white people have internalized racism. Surely mere internalization, then, isn’t a sufficient standard, because I know no one here would claim that “therefore, all white people are racist”.
And I’m sorry, but the whole “sin with your eyes” equivocation is just very, very stupid. Our entire notion of justice would crumble if we even half considered this idea.
I have to anecdotally concur. People base a lot of pride, rightly or wrongly, on the idea of more people being attracted to them than vice versa. I can’t think of many people who’d actually want to decrease the pool of people who are attracted to them. Whether they’d be okay if any one person in that pool actually making a move is a different story.
Perhaps the counterpoint is that even in many cases where the object of the crush is aware, it puts her in a very difficult situation. If their friendship grew before the knowledge of the crush developed, she has a legitimate fear that her friend will hate her if she is forced to reject him, so she just pretends nothing’s up in the hope that it will blow over in time. Obviously, there are cases far less benign than this, but I think this specific kind of case could qualify as a Nice Guy (TM) case.
But I agree with you far more than I disagree, Sailorman. I suppose it might just be a gender gap thing. With few exceptions, men will always sympathize more with John, women with Jane.
Interesting point.
I hope you don’t mind my edit above since i knew what you meant. (though generally speaking, do you mind not categorizing arguments as “bullshit” when you disagree with them?)
In any case, I would say it’s a bit of micro-power dynamics.
John, being male, has society on his side generally speaking. But John, being the unrequited soul that he is, is seriously power LIMITED with respect to Jane in particular. This isn’t meanness or reverse misogyny, it’s supply and demand; he wants what isn’t available. It’s a seller’s market, so to speak.
Now: does the person in a (putatively) friendly and close relationship, who has more power, have a concurrent obligation that goes with that power? Do they have to use that power wisely, so to speak? Do they have to take action unilaterally?
I’m not really sure of those answers myself. My gut feeling is that the more powerful person carries some extra responsibility, but I’m not sure I can explain why very well.
Sometimes, setting boundaries that are OK with you isn’t enough. Sometimes I think there’s some…obligation? (wrong word) to take action if you know something’s going wrong.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that John and Jane can’t remain friends. Say there is no way in hell that John can keep himself from dreaming about her, falling in love with her, and other things which (I hope) we can agree are not ideal, since Jane has zero interest in John’s advances.
So, the friendship is already spoiled. Mostly because it’s not a friendship any more: it’s love in one direction, and friendship in the other direction. And one or both people will get hurt as a result. Something’s got to change.
I think it may be realistic to ask Jane to recognize this and to do something about it. (In reality, it may even be easier, than it is to ask John to recognize it and do something about it. Or not.) And this would hold true if the situations were reversed; it’s not sex specific.
But of course, Jane doesn’t carry ALL the load. by any means. I just think that it’s not zero.
This also fits somewhat with the NG model, doesn’t it? Because if all Jane has to do is think about Jane, it’s harder to toss condemnation on a NG for being self centered.
This sort of thing happens more in high school, when boys tend to be comparatively emotionally immature. So more men will have John’s experience than Jane’s experience.
Having had both, I can say that they both suck. It sucks to love someone who doesn’t love you, and have to decide between feeling emotionally hammered in their presence, or leaving the friendship (and companionship of your object of affection.) And it sucks to have a friend, who you don’t love, fall in love with you: sometimes it requires that you be the bad guy, and if you can’t do that then there’s the “lead them on” guilt, etc etc.
I can understand why people have sympathy for Jane. I don’t know why so many women seem to have zero sympathy for John. Maybe they didn’t ever have that experience?
sylphhead, do note that the Nice Guy(TM) in the cartoons has a speech bubble, not a thought bubble.
(Also, in previous comment, I omitted a “not”. D’oh.)
One thing to note, just because an emotional response is outside your concious control doesn’t mean that the emotion doesn’t stem from sexism (or for that matter, racism or any other bad -ism). It’s not your fault if your emotional response to something is sexist, but it is your fault if you fail to recognize the sexism.
. . . added to clear up, so you can think something like “dammit, I deserve to have sex with her after all the nice guy stuff I did” without being sexist by following that up with “wait a minute, that’s an unfair assessment as she is a human being and all the complex stuff that implies”.
These cartoons do not make any sense. Anyway, I am not good in drawing. I am sure however, some ‘nice guys’ are now drawing something about ‘nice grrls’. It’s time-waste for nothing.
Not sure what you’re trying to say. Could you elabourate?
It’s a seller’s market, so to speak.
Except that Jane ISN’T SELLING. She’s not in the market. That’s the whole problem, here, isn’t it?
Jane’s only, nonzero obligation is not to be abusive; that is, not to use John’s feelings to manipulate him to her own advantage. True of any friendship, sexual or otherwise, no? I’m not sure what other obligations you believe she has.
As to why more women are not sympathetic to John, again: the massive sense of entitlement and the fake friendship. (What’s that Chris Rock line about men who are ‘just friends’ with women but really want to have sex with them? “Let me help you. Would you like a little dick with that?”) I think women would be a lot more sympathetic if John were Jane’s friend, then developed feelings for her about it and recognized that he “owns the problem”, not Jane.
sylphhead – you scolded people who pick on the poor NiceGuy(TM) for having unfortunate thoughts. The NiceGuys(TM) in the cartoons aren’t merely thinking p/a thoughts; they’re talking and trying to get women to bend around their feelings.
Sylphhead: I think they meant that the Nice Guy(TM) is one who speaks and acts on their feelings, not just one that has those feelings.
I mean, we all have emotions and feelings that are not always pretty. The crux of the matter is in how we respond to those emotions and act on them.
Yohan: content warning. We generally expect the posts on this site to be more thoughtful than what you’ve just provided. Just as a note, in case it becomes a habit.
The phrase (in my world) includes times when people aren’t selling. Sorry–real estate law, my bad.
I agree that everyone has a no-abuse obligation, and don’t agree that it’s the only obligation (not sure what ‘nonzero’ is referring to?)
I don’t know if you mean “I don’t understand your post” or “I disagree with your post”…? i said this:
So, the friendship is already spoiled. Mostly because it’s not a friendship any more: it’s love in one direction, and friendship in the other direction. And one or both people will get hurt as a result. Something’s got to change.
I think it may be realistic to ask Jane to recognize this and to do something about it. (In reality, it may even be easier, than it is to ask John to recognize it and do something about it. Or not.) And this would hold true if the situations were reversed; it’s not sex specific.
I’m not very good at putting it into words yet. Sorry.
You mention (below) that you don’t like a “fake friendship.” Do you think the J&J friendship is “real” any more, now that John’s in love with Jane? Do you think it’s the same as it was? Who has to pretend: Him? Her? Both?
As to why more men are arguing with you: You seem to apply this Chris Rock analysis to people like John. That’s wrong.
Do you realise that this was the scenario? in my hypothetical? I don’t see a whole lot of sympathy yet.
Perhaps it’s because John didn’t do this:
Harsh. I mean, you’re withholding sympathy based on an arbitrary requirement for some fairly advanced emotional realization (how many people who are intelligent forty year old adults are always able to “own the problem?”) I think that’s pretty darn unrealistic, and is usually equivalent to being unsympathetic.
Do you think women experience being “in John’s shoes” with the same frequency as do men? Because I find that experience of something sorta helps sometimes. People seem so unsympathetic to John, and so certain that John is the sole arbiter of his fate. I’m not, honestly, seeing that.
So, Sailorman, are you a Nice Guy(TM)?
Sorry, Sam, missed your comment amidst a cascade. The article seems to focus on the preteen years, taking it as an article of faith that it diffuses in later high school, and, presumably, completely dissipated by college. But it’d still apply to guys like you – colleges vary. Community colleges, technical colleges, and vocational colleges are typically the best. Some state universities and liberal arts colleges, however, are simply extensions of high school.
Okay. So long as we’re clear on the difference and don’t conflate the two.
Mandolin, do you not see the problem with your question?
My take on the John and Jane scenario (which has gotten a bit messy to find sites to)
1. Jane owes it to John, as his friend, to not get his hopes up and to not rub her relationship in his face (not required to hide the relationship, but certainly go to someone else to discuss it). That’s it.
2. Jane should NOT be the one to unilaterally decide to end the friendship for John’s sake. She should end it because of his feeleings if SHE’s uncomfortable with them, but deciding what he can take for the sake of the friendship is patronizing. I’ve been unrequitedly in love with friends before and I would have been PISSED if one of them decided, absent inappropriate behavior on my part, to drop me over it.
3. If John decides he can’t be friends with Jane anymore, she IS entitled to a decent end. Madolin’s “never speak to her again comment” was followed by “while spreading it around that she’s a slut.” Choosing to break off the friendship is OK, revenge and spite are not called for.
4. Of course John can complain about how unrequited love sucks, but complaining about Jane as a person is a different matter. He should remember that she’s presumable his friend because she’s a good person and not blame or insult her for not loving him back.
Hi everyone because I am often called or described a nice guy by people I thought I would throw in my two cents, which will hopefully be a little insightful or at least not a consider “boring”.
Now from want I gather a Nice Guy (TM) is essentially a jerk who puts on a façade of being nice in order to get into (usually) a sexual relationship with a woman regardless of her feelings in the matter and after being unsuccessful in their attempt(s) blames his failure as a character flaw in the woman he was interested in and believes that the only problem on his side of the equation is that he is too “nice”.
Now the problem I have with the term Nice Guy ™ is that the definition of a nice guy seems to be so widely open to interpretation that it can cause a lot of confusion in actual communication.
Here is some problems in regards to the both the terms nice guy and Nice Guy TM.
First, from my readings about the definition of Nice Guy TM one characteristic about this guy is that they proclaim to be nice guys. The thing is that in from my experience people usually just call me a nice guy and the only reason that I call myself one is to describe myself in terms of behavior (and quite truthfully, while I think in general most people call me one in at least a slight complimentary way, I think the term is pretty bland). Basically, from all my reading of descriptions of nice guy both good and bad and from personal experience the only things the descriptions really have in common is the following…
Nice Guy: A male who is largely unnoticed by people and is (very) non-demanding of them.
And basically what I am trying to get across because the definition of nice guy is so loose I think the term Nice Guy™ is to subtle of a modifier too communicate something that has a firm meaning e.g. it creates a lot of miscommunication and unnecessary misunderstanding.
I’m not sure how a friendship is spoiled if there’s unrequited love in the situation. I had a good friend in college who I fell in love with, for whom it was unrequited, and do you know what happened? We remained friends, and close friends. I’ve lost touch with her, unfortunately, but that’s due to the fact that she never got into technology, so I don’t know how to contact her. Nonetheless, the friendship remains.
Harsh.
That’s me, the ballbuster, assuming that John should be able to figure out that if he loves Jane and she doesn’t return that feeling, the problem is NOT that Jane is a bitch, stupid, has awful judgment in men or has let him down somehow. That’s sure some advanced emotional work, all right.
(And why yes, I would say that many women, including myself, have been in the position of having romantic feelings for a friend who doesn’t reciprocate. You seem to think that naturally leads to a sense of entitlement. Not my experience, but YMMV.)
In your original example, John is not just thinking that he loves Jane, but that because he loves her, she should be with him. Wishing somebody loved you or would feel differently is not exactly the same as a sense of entitlement – which, in your example, John has.
What obligations, precisely, do you think Jane has other than not deciding to use John’s feelings as a pushbutton?
I’m too exhausted to make the comment I’d like to, but in short.
Being a man who is nice to women but is unable to find a romantic partner does not make one a Nice Guy ™.
Being a man who is nice to women but is unable to find a romantic partner and feels badly that either a) he can’t figure out how to be more attractive to those he is attracted to and/or b) is jealous of other men who he may or may not think are jerks does not make one a Nice Guy ™.
Being a man who is nice to women but is unable to find a romantic partner and blames women for that is a Nice Guy(tm).
Being a man who is nice to women for the sole reason of finding a romantic partner is a Nice Guy(tm).
This thread shows more confusion about that than I would expect.
Nicely delineated, Mr. Squid.
I’m not grooving on the idea that mature “friendships” are “power oriented relationships.” You certainly see such dynamics in high school, but the notion that adult women carry the “power” in their friendships with men because women “own the pussy” is Nice Guy thinking at its most obnoxious.
In the J&J scenario…it is pretty much John’s responsibility to determine whether the friendship can be maintained within the boundaries Jane has established.
As far as the computer analogy…try this, because in my experience, the following more accurately represents reality: NG John fixes Jane’s computer, while Jane is cooking up marinated tenderloins and asparagus for their dinner…
Reciprocity exists…just not in the form NG John wants it to take.
Nope. Are you a (insert appropriately insulting term)? Really, what sort of freakin’ question is that?
Yeah, I thought that was out of line as well.
I’m not sure why so many people are so confused about what a NiceGuy(TM) really is. If you don’t know, you either are one, or you’ve never had the misfortune of meeting one. I mean, really.
There was a NiceGuy(TM) that I dated in high school. I didn’t know any better. He bought me stuff, and then got mad when I refused to “repay” him with sexual favors. He raped me.
WHAT is so hard to understand about that?
There was another NiceGuy(TM) that was, unfortunately, a co-worker. He knew I was married, and he had a girlfriend, but he never missed a chance to tell me that he was a nice guy, and I should leave my husband to be with him. When he found out that my husband was being deployed overseas, he flat out told me that he hoped my husband DIED so that I would be free to hook up with him. I thought it was quite a peek into the mind of a sociopath.
I apologize for asking.
I do think there’s a lot of privelege that needs checking, particularly when Sailorman’s throwing around accusations at the rest of us of being unempathetic.
“There was a NiceGuy(TM) that I dated in high school. I didn’t know any better. He bought me stuff, and then got mad when I refused to “repay” him with sexual favors. He raped me.”
Yeah. Amazing how many people I know with stories like that.
But let’s please all condense the criticism of real social dynamics with picking on geeks, as if — tapping Mythago here — none of the women in this thread are fucking geeks.
Okay Sailorman…the BH suggests that I may have been a tad unfair in interpreting your comment regarding “power” in friendships, simply because I assume “maturity.” Mea culpa.
But it is still fair to point out that the only power Jane has in her relationship with John is the power John permits Jane to exercise.
Ah, Real Social Dynamics(tm). The PUA crowd at its finest.
So, all of you are so emotionally healthy that you’d weather a few decades of involuntary celibacy unscathed? Kudos, if true.
“So, all of you are so emotionally healthy that you’d weather a few decades of involuntary celibacy unscathed? Kudos, if true.”
Did anyone say that people should be unscathed?
So, all of you are so emotionally healthy that you’d weather a few decades of involuntary celibacy unscathed
Now, now. Anyone can be non-celibate, if they are but willing to lower their standards. No such critter as “involuntary celibacy.”
Some responses to Sailorman; just read through the thread so I’m responding to a couple of different posts.
Women in our society have huge pressure put on them to be courteous to men and their advances. The social pressure not to hurt men’s feelings introduces a serious power dynamic with the man having that power. He offers assistance when it isn’t needed; she is expected to be gracious and thankful. Even if it is needed, she is expected to be more effusively thankful than if it were offered by another woman.
This idea of the woman having the power in these sorts of relationships is what feeds into the “conniving bitches” meme, which in turn gives ammo to Nice Guys™.
This upset is not what anyone has a problem with. If all Nice Guys™ were just upset, we wouldn’t know they existed. They spew all over the internet about teh bitchez who lead them on.
I think this is another example of not understanding the different pressures on men and women in relationships. First of all, many women who are dating alcoholics are trapped in abusive relationships and don’t have full choice. Secondly, because of the ways that women are expected to behave in relationships with men, they “let them down nicely”, which is easy for a man to pretend not to understand. They then get stuck in this friendship with someone who they suspect is interested in more, but can’t get free. In instances wherein I was on the other side of the fence, with a woman friend who was romantically interested in me, I did not have the same pressures on me to be polite and overly gracious. Also, there weren’t any of those creepy “services rendered” that get offered by Nice Guys™.
I am a man whose has little sympathy for John, and I have been in his situation. I can understand being frustrated and sad that someone you are attracted to doesn’t return your attraction. But the expression of “She just likes jerks and doesn’t appreciate this great guy right here! And so do all women! I mean, I do so much for her! Why won’t she date me?” is an expression of entitlement. And that I have no sympathy for. Being attracted to someone doesn’t mean they have to reciprocate. Doing things for people doesn’t mean they have to be attracted to you. The feeling that they should is entitlement.
I think this is another example of not understanding the different pressures on men and women in relationships. First of all, many women who are dating alcoholics are trapped in abusive relationships and don’t have full choice.
There is no difference between men and women in this. There are female alcoholics and men trapped in abusive relationships. I don’t think that this is what this thread is about, however.
Secondly, because of the ways that women are expected to behave in relationships with men, they “let them down nicely”, which is easy for a man to pretend not to understand. They then get stuck in this friendship with someone who they suspect is interested in more, but can’t get free.
I sympathize with the problem. But the fix is to directly communicate what you want. Yes, society pressures you not to. That’s too bad, and it’s a problem with society, but it’s not a problem that’s going to be fixed anytime soon. Speak up and say what you want; there’s not really any other way to get it. Men aren’t psychic.
Speak up and say what you want; there’s not really any other way to get it. Men aren’t psychic.
And neither are women. Women aren’t psychic, either—but often, we are expected to be. We’re expected to be the “emotional class”, who sees through the complicated emotional tangles of relationships and smooths them out for all concerned. Or, to use the John and Jane example up above:
Has John asked Jane out on a date? Has he made it clear that he would like to be more than “just friends”? Has he ever brought the subject up? And if not, why is it wrong for Jane to assume that John’s interest in her is merely that of friendship? That for whatever reason, he doesn’t want to pursue a sexual relationship with her?
Or are we supposed to assume that because John is male, Jane is female, and they are both heterosexual, that Jane is to assume that John’s primary interest in her is sexual? Is the default assumption that heterosexual men and women can’t really be platonic friends? Is the default assumption that the only reason John would do something like fix Jane’s computer, is to get the side benefit of sex?
Sometimes, setting boundaries that are OK with you isn’t enough. Sometimes I think there’s some…obligation? (wrong word) to take action if you know something’s going wrong.
What action would that be? What exactly is Jane’s obligation here? First of all, how and when should she recognize that John’s feelings towards her are not that of “just a friend”—from the start, because he’s a heterosexual male? Because of certain “dogwhistle” type actions that indicate more-than-friend feelings (“dogwhistle” actions for this purpose meaning “signals that are unspoken and not overtly sexual in any form”)? Or does her obligation only start when John comes out and tells her that he is interested in her as a partner, not as a friend?
What then? What does Jane do? I would think her only obligation is to be clear about her own feelings—to say one way or another if she wanted to be more than “just friends”? Does she have a further obligation to break off her friendship with John, for his own sake? Because to expect that, is to require that Jane both recognize and protect John’s feelings better than he can.
The whole point of Nice Guy ™ behavior is how passive-aggressive it is, even more than the sense of entitlement. The idea is that if no overt action is taken (asking the woman out, verbally expressing feelings, etc.), then any blame for a friendly relationship hitting the skids can be placed on the woman (“she should have known!” or “but I’m better than that guy!” or “she should have told me to get lost/not come over anymore/not let me do anything nice for her unless she was going to change her mind and drop those drawers”, etc.).
Very well put.
“I sympathize with the problem. But the fix is to directly communicate what you want. Yes, society pressures you not to. That’s too bad, and it’s a problem with society, but it’s not a problem that’s going to be fixed anytime soon. Speak up and say what you want; there’s not really any other way to get it. Men aren’t psychic.”
Two problems with this comment, Robert (well, two off the top of my head, anyway)
1. You seem to think that the expectation is just “be nice or he won’t like you,” but it’s broader than that. If the only negative consequence was that the man she was being direct with would be offended and go away, women wouldn’t have as hard a time being direct. (it would still be somewhat difficult because of a lifetime of socialization) EVERYONE feels free to chime in with a judgement about women’s behavior, and they’ve ALL been socialized to expect us to be nice, so the dynamic is really “be nice to him or everyone will think you’re a bitch and no one will like you.” That’s especially true if they are both part of the same circle of friends, and it’s a tall price to expect women to pay. (especially when they’re giving out social cues that ALREADY indicate a lack of interest)
2. Women won’t be direct if they don’t feel that it’s safe to do so. I’m not talking about social pressure here, I’m talking about actual revenge or violence. This is a more common concern than men are generally aware of. If I’m talking to a man who won’t respect clear social cues of disinterest, why should I just assume that he’s going to respect a direct request that he leave me alone? Sometimes “stringing him along” is really “trying to get out of the situation unhurt.” (and no, as several commenters have made clear, being friends beforehand does not protect women from violence in this situation if the man is inclined to get violent)
Harold Hussey, read the second paragraph of my post #59.
starky, I’m very sorry to hear about that. There’s nothing I’d agree to more than that guys who can’t man up to their feelings and resort to psychological manipulation are the epitome or pathetic. I hope that the full force of the law gave your high school “friend” what was coming (though unfortunately I somehow doubt it).
My problem isn’t refusing to recognize assholes as such. My problem is with the label itself. Read Harold Hussey’s post #72. Why does he deserve to be cast in the same net as rapists and passive-aggressive manipulators? (And before you tell me that the difference lies in the capitals and the TM, I’d ask you to read my second paragraph post #59 also.)
I have no idea what either of you are saying.
Harold and starky, that should have read post #54, not #59, sorry. Too early for a Saturday.
No it isn’t. I don’t think you understand what the word entitlement means. Just because you are nice to someone in the hope that they will sleep with you, and are then disappointed when your hope doesn’t pan out, doesn’t mean you feel entitled to sleep with them. It is just common garden disappointment and bitterness at dashed hopes and shattered dreams. The fact they feel they have to prove their worth shows they do not have a sense of entitlement. If these guys really had a sense of entitlement they would not feel they had to pull a load of romantic sappy crap on someone in order to win their heart and get sex.
Just because you are nice to someone in the hope that they will sleep with you, and are then disappointed when your hope doesn’t pan out, doesn’t mean you feel entitled to sleep with them.
Change one word…”hope”…to…”expectation.” Then change “disappointment” to “resentment.” In the real world of relationship dynamics, these are tiny steps…and just who is the “bitterness” directed at?
“Bitterness” reflects entitlement.
Newsflash! Change the words in a sentence, you change the meaning of the sentence! Film at 11!
Sigh
The point is that hope and disappointment translate into entitlement when the outcome is bitterness.
ahunt – exactly. good point.
James and Bjartmarr – a person who only hopes to have his/her affection returned (as opposed to expecting that to happen) doesn’t respond by assuming that the object of their affection is a bad or stupid person, and they certainly don’t assume that an entire gender is bad or stupid by extension. there’s a world of difference between “she doesn’t like me after all my attempts to win her – I have the worst luck! why doens’t anyone want to date me?” and “She just likes jerks and so do all women! I do so much for her, why won’t she date me?” The second shows an expection that niceness should be rewarded with sex. (it also shows a creepy tendency to treat women as interchangeable.
Yes, but that wasn’t what James was describing. It was, perhaps, what ahunt wanted him to describe…but it wasn’t what he described.
As for creepy, I find this apparant need to take a normal, laudatory term that describes a large segment of the population, then stick a trademark symbol on it and redefine it as a misogynist caveman, to be kind of creepy. It’s one thing to do it out of thoughtlessness, but to stick with it when it’s obviously obfuscating your point (he said, in post #99) leads me to believe that there’s some ulterior motivation going on here.
To jump off what others have already said – Robert, it is a good thing to be direct, but it’s not as though women are deliberately being indirect in a vacuum. I can tell you from experience that not every man who says “I wish I didn’t have to read their goddamn minds!” is all that happy with the alternative.