[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. ((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.)) –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.
And I haven’t said this or implied it. I’m talking about young men placing personal value on whether or not they have successfully completed sexual intercourse (narrowly and misogynistically defined as penetration of the vagina by the penis). When the successful completion of said act raises an individual man’s masculinity cred regardless of the woman with whom he has engaged in such act, then what we’re looking at is misogyny. When the act is more life enhancing, more defining, than the shared engagement with a specific woman, then we have objectification for the sole purpose of shoring up male ego. Women’s bodies act as the primary stage for men’s coming-of-age mythologizing. [well, women’s bodies and war] You’ve got to hate someone a hell of a lot to allow her to be the backdrop, the prop, rather than the fellow traveler, in your male search for ego maturation.
If a 16, 17 or 18 year old boy limits his definition of sexual relations to penetrating a vagina with his penis (or, if you prefer, having his penis enveloped by a vagina), I’d be more incline to attribute that to naiveté and self-centeredness than to misogyny. He may really think that penile-vaginal intercourse is “it” for her, as well, and if she’s in the same age group, she may not be knowledgeable or secure enough to be able to communicate that she wants or needs something else for the act to be satisfying.
Otherwise, I think we may be more or less in agreement. For a man to think of sex not as something he does *with* a woman (and therefore another human being), but instead as something he does *to* a woman’s genitals, is indeed misogynistic.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » The Thin Line Between An Ordinary Guy And A Rapist
Whoa, this thread still exists?
(is this why I get a bodyguard?)
oh and wow, may I say how much I love this comment-editing feature? So cool. Love what you’ve done with the place, Amp ;D
I haven’t been here long, but I have frequented this blog since at least the Duke lacrosse hype, and heard all that was said then. I find this sudden ambiguity concerning the sex socialization of jock-types to be put upon and wholly unconvincing. That strong, often quite violent misogynistic attitudes are especially prevalent among athletes and fraternities has been well established in discussions among feminists prior to this, and please don’t pretend otherwise.
While ‘jock’ types may have represented some kind of upper crust social strata when we were still in formative mode and stupid, things change as we get older, and I realize the correlation between some of the archetypes I’ve been using and the adult world is far from exact. I do think that some of the same basic principles apply, however.
I’ve withstood more than my fair share of criticism for my taste in women. Sometimes I wish people would bugger off, but all in all it’s a fair topic, at least when talking about it in the abstract. So let’s discuss women’s taste in men. Is there any truth to the claim that women like assholes and are turned off by nice guys? From what I have seen in the scene in all my years, I’m leaning toward an asterisked yes. The question as it is posed carries a storied and sexist history, but that doesn’t mean that it is never appropriate to bring it up. Some statements that have been raised here (‘it’s the nerds who are the most sexist in the end’) all but proclaim that the men who are the most worthy of female affection and attraction are the ones who are receiving it already. Which is fine, so long as you also say that the women who are the most worthy of male affection and attraction are the ones who are receiving it already. That would make things a lot easier for me in many ways, just as the former may be convenient for a good number of women, but this isn’t a road we want to go down. (Remember, preferring a tall, thin, busty blue-eyed blonde with sub-par intelligence and a subservient attitude is just a ‘personal preference’ as well, and it is no more or less legitimate to criticize this particular taste as anyone else’s.)
“If jane wants bikers that is tough noogies for Joe. If Joe wants a one-night stand that is quite different for Jane if she wants a long-term relationship.
Why the difference?
Because in the first scenario, Jane isn’t treating Joe as an object or as less of a person because she isn’t having sex with him. She sees and acknowledges that Joe is a person, but he’s a person she doesn’t want to have sex with. Joe is entitled to be seen as a human being here – and he is – but her not wanting to be with him is not robbing him of his humanity.”
A lot of one night stands, you realize, are mutually agreed upon. If Joe used deception to get into Jane’s bedroom, then that’s another story. If Joe simply would not give Jane the time of day for the express reason that she was not interested in a one night stand as he was, that is no more demeaning to her than Jane’s insistence on bikers is to Joe. That conformity to some physical expectation is inherently more dehumanizing or unfair than conformity to some mental expectation is treated here as a given, but I’ll need convincing reasons as to why I should accept that in the first place.
Defenestrated:
I feel oppressed by that question.
I’ve heard fraternity boys and jocks commit more rape on college campuses. But most college women do not hang out in fraternity houses. Sorority girls and perhaps clueless girls hang out in fraternity houses. When the frat boys get older, they are sexist on a structural level perhaps maintaining the glass ceiling for women at their corporation or keeping their Rotary Clubs 95% male and whatnot. Are they getting laid? Yes.
Nice Guys become MRAs. They are civilian folks like everyone else. They are the lighting tech guy in high school who was constantly hitting on you, the marching bandmates who hit on you in groups, the guy in youth symphony who was crazy about you. These are the civilian folks you’re in contact with all the time. The only times I entered a frat house was to fundraise for the gymnastics team or to get them to sign petitions to raise the minimum wage. In other words, most people do not hang out in fraternity houses.
Is there something wrong when jerks get laid? Yes. Feminism raises the awareness of women so women don’t put up with the assholery of either frat boys or nerds. That’s why Jessica Valenti wrote her book. Feminism raises the standards of all men and women.
Brandon, hold up: You feel oppressed because I am in physical danger?
Now that’s some effin’ privilege, eh?
And…yeah, kidding or not, I’m just not havin’ it these days. The “oh she’s so angry, that feminist!” shit just doesn’t even make sense in this day and age. It’s not funny, it’s certainly not clever; in fact, it’s just kind of pathetic.
(yeah yeah, no offense, sorry Amp for the personal remark…but seriously, y’know?)
Didn’t y’all see Children of Men? Wouldn’t y’all think it’s nigh time to start sucking up or something, lest all the eggs go AWOL?
*blink* I think I missed something.
Defenestrated, are you in real physical danger? Is there anything we can do?
Missed you, by the way.
Donna, I’m missing something, I think. When you say “Nice Guys become MRAS…the guy in youth symphony who was crazy about you” do you mean he is/was a Nice Guy*, or an MRA, or…?
*and given the caps, I assume you mean “not actually a nice guy, but rather a Nice Guy ™”
Mandolin, I have no words for how much I appreciate the concern – and I’ve missed You! too during my temporary fall-from-internetsland.
I was in physical danger, I guess, but it seems to have been taken care of. To use Time magazine covers as my example, it was a little, “2006 ‘man’ of the Year” (the cheesy reflective one, remember?) v. the 2005(4?) “Teh Whistleblowers” (can’t have a Woman of the Year, god no, but here are a few with a vague karass-name…damn Womenz always ruining the MRA Partay).
Fucker picked the wrong witch to fuck with, y’know?
[no, you probably don’t know, because I’m being intensely vague. At least once a day these days, I have no f’ing clue where to start.
The point is, I’m good and safe, both physically and, increasingly, emotionally/psychically – and ever-more convinced that Amp runs a magic blog ;D ]
Oh! and I have a new kitten!
(which is somehow incredibly relevant. I dunno. It’s all elastic, this life…)
Holy Crap, Defenestrated!
I’m so sorry you were in danger, and I’m glad that it’s over. Of course, if there’s anything we can do, let us know.
—Myca
Thank you, Myca. I think y’all just did ;D
[heart]s
Sailorman, you’ve been reading feminist blogs for a year and can’t figure it out? You FAIL at feminist and anti-racist blogs.
Nerds are the most sexist in the end because they are unsuccessful with women, scapegoat women for their problems and hurt the most women. The typical MRA is divorced probably because he was an asshole to begin with. The nerds who make the most anti-woman policies look like they couldn’t get laid in high school. This includes Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, neo-cons, the Christian fundamentalists, male pro-abstinence education advocates, male pro-life leaders, Scalia, Alito, Souter, Clarence Thomas, etc. The frat boys and jocks cum CEOs are an exclusive group most women don’t come in contact with. Fraternities and varsity sports teams require hazing rituals and tryouts and not many men belong to this category. It’s the everyday nerds and anti-women policy nerds that hurt the most women.
[Deleted by Sailorman’s request. –Amp]
Let me add my voice to the chorus: It’s nice to see you back here, defenestrated. :-) I hope we’ll get together for that lunch in the meatworld soon.
Donna, I certainly agree that there are plenty of misogynistic male nerds burning with resentment at women. But I don’t see any reason to assume that male nerds & geeks in general are worse than other guys. Speaking as a nerd myself, I’m finding your anti-nerd campaign here more than a little grating.
Also, the idea that “getting laid” is inversely correlated to misogyny is not supported by the research I’ve read; if anything, it seems like a bit of a sexist stereotype to me (“men turn out badly unless they get laid as teens”). IIRC, studies have shown that extreme misogyny is often correlated with hypermasculinity, which in turn is often correlated with having a fair amount of sex.
* * *
Regarding “Sailorman, you’ve been reading feminist blogs for a year and can’t figure it out? You FAIL at feminist and anti-racist blogs,” and “you’re just being an asshole,” I’m really in no mood to play moderator/referee.
So do me a favor: DON’T tell me that the other person’s posts excuses the condesending or insulting (respectively) tone of your post. DON’T tell me how horribly unfair I’m being to criticize you both rather than taking a side. Just stop flaming each other, right now.
sorry. Matter of fact, being in a better mood now (I made cookies) I’d appreciate it if you’d delete that.
Thanks, Amp!
(I’m actually contemplating Chinese food as we “speak”. Is there any vegetarian Mandarin “duck” in pdx?)
* * *
How’s that for off-topic? Do I win any sort of prize?
Defenestrated:
Oh. Do you actually have a bodyguard? I thought that you were just implying (facetiously) that people might want to attack you physically for writing the comment that inspired this post. Hence the (also facetious) reference to the post in which men were criticized for doing the same thing. I apologize for the lack of clarity.
“I’ve heard fraternity boys and jocks commit more rape on college campuses. But most college women do not hang out in fraternity houses. When the frat boys get older, they are sexist on a structural level perhaps maintaining the glass ceiling for women at their corporation or keeping their Rotary Clubs 95% male and whatnot. Are they getting laid? Yes.
Nice Guys become MRAs. They are civilian folks like everyone else.”
College women do not hang out in arcades or Magic: The Gathering marathons either, but notice that this doesn’t preclude them from interacting with these people on a daily basis. Or are you suggesting that frat boys cease acting like frat boys the moment they leave the fraternity house building? I find that hard to believe.
I don’t know of any real world data to suggest that frat boys and athletes are more likely to be in high socioeconomic positions after they leave college. I’d expect any such correlation to actually work in the opposite direction; the idea that most jocks, many of whom can’t locate their town on a map upon graduation, become CEO’s at a greater pace than their brainier brethren is frankly ludicrous. Nor is there any reason valid reason to suggest that Nice Guys (the subset of which I presume is vastly more numerous than MRA’s) end up being MRA’s more often than those who were popular in high school or college. So far, the only real world data with which we can work with suggests that Nice Guys and jocks are all men, sharing all the vices and virtues that all men have. The only exception that’s safe to make is that jocks are known to harbour attitudes conducive to rape, sexual assault, and physical abuse of women.
Men today are laden with many quid pro quos when it comes to their own choice with women. I have a fair bit of history where this is involved though I don’t think it’s the time and place to divulge it all here, but suffice to say I more than accept now that the ideal standards of attractiveness (including but by no means restricted to physical beauty) placed on women have long running sexist and racist roots that any true blue (red?) leftist male cannot simply toss away with the self serving catchall of ‘personal preferences’.
Now, regarding women. There’s a bit of ironic humour in women judging men on a catcall and ‘what is he from 1 to 10’ mode. However, and maybe I’m just relying too much on pop culture depictions of some feminists, I too often find this undercurrent that to be an empowered woman means to judge men – and always against the conventional, heteronormative scale, naturally – on as superficial basis as would label a man a chauvinist pig were the situations reversed. (Again, note that physical attractiveness is by no means the only grade here. You can care shit all about appearance and still be superficial.) Personally, I find certain statements made here to be incomprehensible if not made from a mindset that sought to exonerate certain classes of crudely misogynist men (and condemn their counterpart foils) because conventional standards would regard them as more attractive – for reasons that should be obvious.
Brandon, I can’t help but be amused at the assumption that I was being facetious. It’s not so much about this thread as, well, what sylphhead, Donna et al were talking about just above: that there’s only a very fine line between NiceGuy™, MRA, and total sociopath (violent or non-).
Here’s a hint:
mmkay? Lucky for me, I was on the phone and across the country when I did call out Rumpelstiltzken.
Just for good measure…yeah, what’s up with the automatic assumption that a woman in danger must just be making it up?
And…sylphhead’s last paragraph, a million times over.
I had a lot more patience with men before this thread…
Defenestrated:
You specifically attributed having a bodyguard to the fact that this thread still exists. That was clearly a joke, and since you had (AFAIK) mentioned having a bodyguard only in the context of that joke, it was not unreasonable to assume that the existence of the bodyguard was merely part of the joke.
Amp, what I mean is men who are the most unsuccessful with women have an axe to grind and make women the scapegoat for their problems. They are unsuccessful with women, don’t understand women as well and make the most anti-women policy. E.g. Look at Democrats vs. Republicans
Amp, what I mean is men who the most unsuccessful with women have an axe to grind and make women the scapegoat for their problems, e.g. MRAs. Men who are unsuccessful with women don’t understand women and make the most anti-women policy. E.g. Republicans vs. Democrats, Bush vs. Clinton. The men who are successful with women don’t have an axe to grind because they are mostly getting laid. They don’t scapegoat women for their problems and go out of their way to hurt women. It’s not a perfect science but this is generally true.
Then you look at online behavior. Are frat boys and jocks online harrassing women? In the Kathy Sierra case, the men who gave her death threats and harrassment were computer geeks. Which men are doing the most harrassing online? Frat boys and jocks are not online doing this probably because they are getting laid, partying, watching sports and doing sports. It’s not a perfect science but MRAs online are not the frat boy and jock variety. Look at the men on this thread alone. They are less the frat boy and jock variety and more the frustrated nerd variety.
Brandon: what Donna just said. I’d hope that neither of us would take this interaction personally, but…the basic point is that nowadays, most women could use a bodyguard or two.
Angry internet feminists (See: Kathy Sierra especially; Jill from Feministe v. AutoAdmit; Amanda from Pandagon v. Bill Donohue; etc.) can use a whole team of ’em, generally speaking.
Angry internet feminists who “out” emotional abusers, well…I’ve been learning how to be my own bodyguard. All that’s left are the ninja lessons…what’s the one where you don’t need to have much of your own physical strength, Aikido?
[short version: I had an e-stalker ‘or something’. It’s all cool now, but, meh. NiceGuys™ suck. I am sorry for my earlier comment about losing patience with Men In General, though…that’s not really a direction I want to take either the conversation *or* my own train of thought. semi-insult retracted, if y’all please ;) ]
Donna Darko,
I agree with Amp that claiming that nerds are more sexist than other men because women don’t want to have sex with them is based on the same sexist logic that Nice Guys use.
And the Democrat/Republican thing is weird. Are we to assume that Democrats are the cool kids and Republicans are the nerds? I admit that I’m no expert on American politics, but I know enough to know that the Democrats have a shitty record on gender issues (despite being the lesser of the two evils). And there seems to be some Clinton nostalgia going around, as if Bill was a great friend to women in his time in office. Is Bill Clinton not sexist (despite allegations of sexual harassment and assault – I’m pretty sure – can someone else help me out here)? Or is it that Bill Clinton’s sexism is different since women find him attractive?
And parts of this thread just strike me as sadly hilarious in that some participants are using the whole frat boy genre of movies as the basis for their analysis. Jocks are stupid, nerds are the great underdogs, and so on.
defenestrated, i didn’t follow this thread until the end. you’re on the feminist side? oh cool.
debbie, nothing to do with cool. Which groups go out of their way to harrass women online or enact policy against women? 1) The ones who didn’t get laid in high school 2) The nerds. These two groups include the MRAs, Republicans, the male pro-life leaders, Christian fundamentalists who advocate abstinence education, men who don’t ever try to understand women. Frat boys and jocks don’t go out of their way to harrass women online or enact anti-women policy so they are in neither category.
There’s a genetic link between testosterone and feminist views? Testosterone and respect for women? Okay, news to me.
Debbie,
Since Clinton tends to get compared to Reagan, George Bush (senior) and George Bush (junior) then in that context, and relatively speaking he is often considered a “friend to women.” It doesn’t mean he’s not objectively sexist.
defenestrated, i didn’t follow this thread until the end. you’re on the feminist side? oh cool.
Donna, you just made my day ;) I’m not making fun of you at all, just, that question strikes me as funny.
It’s a little hard to type right now. This is really Merlin, the kitten on defen’s arm, purring orders into the computer.
“Tap! Tap now! Go mama go!”
That, I’d imagine, has something to do with the ongoing research into homosexuality (what was it back in the late ’90s? short index fingers or something? Womb-hormones?) – it seems like women can get all sorts of respect from anybody who’s not attracted to them.
Which pretty much leaves us with gay men and other women for pro-feminist friends. I, for one, am fine with that :D
I think Clinton is (was?) what is known as a womanizer. His marriage didn’t prevent him from pursuing sexual encounters with other women, and the women who had sex with him probably all knew his marital status.
He seems like the kind of guy that needs a lot of attention (and perhaps was able to make it look like he was the one giving the attention some of the time) and there were, apparently, a number of women who were willing to give him that attention he craved.
He took advantage of the power difference between himself and the women he encountered, for his personal gratification. If he had any encounters with women who were even close to his own status (besides his wife), the general public hasn’t been made aware of it. There’s no question in my mind he’s sexist.
But, there are lots of ways to be sexist, and even if he had never had an extra-marital affair he’d probably still be sexist. Having said that I will add that as sexists go I’d rather have the womanizer in the White House than the pro-lifer.
But I wouldn’t call either Clinton or Bush “nice guys”, as part of the definition seems to be men who are unsuccessful. There are very few things more successful that being president of the United States.
While nerds may be the ones behind the majority of online harassment (probably because they’re spending more time online), I somehow don’t think this translates in meat space. Are all the men who abuse their partners just frustrated nerds? Are men who rape women just angry because they couldn’t get laid in high school? Do frat boys and jocks never go into American politics? Are they not sometimes Republicans? Are we to assume that all Republicans and Christian fundamentalists adhere to the values they promote? How many sex scandels before we wise up to the fact that not all these guys are as “pure” as they claim to be? I’m sure at least some of these guys were having as much sex as they wanted in high school. And lots of men who hate women have tons of sex.
And please ignore my Clinton comments. I’m seeing a lot of Clinton nostalgia lately amongst American feminists. I thought there were some allegations of him actually assaulting someone (without charges being laid), but I’m not finding anything on Google. I don’t actually care about his affairs, although I do think the Lewinsky situation was all kinds of exploitive.
Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.
I spoke too soon if you’re not a feminist. This thread is really long so I have no clue.
Are gay men more respectful of women? I hear the ones that want nothing to do with women even as friends are the biggest misogynists. The male-identified ones without the groupies. A lot of Republican men are closet gays.
Clinton a Nice Guy? He enacted pro-woman legislation though less than he wanted to, does not harrass women online, understands women, worships capable women, calls himself a feminist, always talked about his dream of becoming first gentleman, probably got laid in high school, worshipped his mom, protected his mom from drunken dad, most feminists love him and worships his wife’s abilities. I don’t categorize him as a Nice Guy.
Ugh, Clinton accused of rape? I don’t actually want a womanizer in the White House…sexual exploitation is dehumanizing, which we know is true for Clinton, and is enough of a problem as far as trust is concerned. Sorry for encouraging the thread in this direction…
“Amp, what I mean is men who the most unsuccessful with women have an axe to grind and make women the scapegoat for their problems, e.g. MRAs. Men who are unsuccessful with women donâÂÂt understand women and make the most anti-women policy. E.g. Republicans vs. Democrats, Bush vs. Clinton. The men who are successful with women donâÂÂt have an axe to grind because they are mostly getting laid. They donâÂÂt scapegoat women for their problems and go out of their way to hurt women. ItâÂÂs not a perfect science but this is generally true.”
What you meant was perfectly clear from the beginning. What we don’t have is anything in the way of evidence to suppose it is true. There is no evidence that Republican men get laid less than Democrat men do; not to mention the establishment of causality necessary if and when this phantom link were to be verified (i.e., it’s lack of sex that’s causing misogyny, not misogyny that’s causing lack of sex. Frankly, the latter strikes me as more probable, though remember we still have nothing to suppose this link exists in the first place). Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the main reason that men are sexist is from being rejected by women. Were men noticeable less sexist in the days when it was generally unthinkable for a woman to turn him down?
It’s not that it’s not a *perfect* science. It’s that it completely runs contrary to every piece of actual evidence we have. Assuming all men to be equal from the outset, the only empirical fact we’ve established is that frat boys and jocks are more partial to rape, sexual assault, and general abuse of women.
“Then you look at online behavior. Are frat boys and jocks online harrassing women?”
Would you rather your daughter be raped than harassed online? I don’t know about you, but if and when I have any daughters, I’d think less about her attending E3 than the regionals afterparty.
“Look at the men on this thread alone. They are less the frat boy and jock variety and more the frustrated nerd variety.”
If you’re talking about me, what makes you assume I wasn’t one when I was younger? People change, especially when they’ve been exposed to the worst elements of their particular subculture. Not that I bought into the whole thing whole cloth. The anti-intellectualism, in particular, sort of made me keep a Heisman’s toward it all. (To clarify, because of my interests elsewhere and my political misgivings about the worship of spectator sport, I never truly considered myself a jock. But the friends I had, the parties I went to, were primarily of that type, and many peers who didn’t get to know me would identify me with them. Hope that helps.)
Your trumping of online harassment over real life harassment is confounding. You’ll have to convince at least two-thirds majority of parents, law enforcement agencies, and real life rape and assault victims of this sudden reversal of priorities before it’s credible. Consider it making an amendment.
Not to mention that your view of rape is completely incongruent with what feminism has already established. Women are very rarely raped by strangers, stalkers, and strangers in the dark. They’re almost always by men they already know, in particular their current boyfriends/husbands (though I’ve heard that ex-lovers rape at higher rates per person).
[Edited: actually, I don’t think Donna brought this up, but I’m pretty sure someone did, so I’m leaving it in. Just ignore the “you’s”.]
“While nerds may be the ones behind the majority of online harassment (probably because theyâÂÂre spending more time online), I somehow donâÂÂt think this translates in meat space. Are all the men who abuse their partners just frustrated nerds? Are men who rape women just angry because they couldnâÂÂt get laid in high school? Do frat boys and jocks never go into American politics? Are they not sometimes Republicans? Are we to assume that all Republicans and Christian fundamentalists adhere to the values they promote? How many sex scandels before we wise up to the fact that not all these guys are as âÂÂpureâ as they claim to be? IâÂÂm sure at least some of these guys were having as much sex as they wanted in high school. And lots of men who hate women have tons of sex.”
Given that worship of high school sports is more endemic in the South, Midwest, and rural areas, I’d wager that a jock is actually more likely to be a sexist Republican, something I didn’t think was less than established fact before this thread. (Granted, he grew up internalizing such values, but I also think the subculture he chose to associate with is a compounding factor. Also, note that I’m talking about Republicans who happen to be sexist, not that all Republicans are sexist.)
As for your first couple of rhetorical questions, rest assured they have been empirically verified, albeit in the opposite direction.
“Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.”
Was this before, after, or nestled in between Whitewater and Vince Foster’s secret assassination?
“And parts of this thread just strike me as sadly hilarious in that some participants are using the whole frat boy genre of movies as the basis for their analysis. Jocks are stupid, nerds are the great underdogs, and so on.”
True. I’ve already noted that assuming the same stupid college archetypes hold true in the adult world is problematic; former ‘nerds’ become the new ‘jocks’, and so forth. Many of my ‘nerd’ friends have indeed now become the dominant ones, and they are no different and no better than their D-earning, degree-in-Communications-getting buddies back in school. But their ability to act on these inclinations was, is, and always will be dependent on their being in a socially dominant position. I really didn’t think that dominant men should be dealt with special attention from feminists was a disputed point; I guess I was wrong. I’ll admit I got too caught up in the one-and-a-half star teen movie setpiece.
Donna,
I have made no claim that Clinton is a Nice Guy. My argument remains that a) Nice Guys are one kind of sexist, b) many nice guys are nerds, c) lots of non-Nice Guys/nerds are misogynists, d) a lot of misogynist men have lots of sex with women, e) the fact that they are having lots of sex does not make them any less misogynist. Although it may make them less likely to act on that misogyny online.
I just cannot figure out your argument. Maybe I’m totally misinterpreting you, but all I’m getting from it is that you think nerdy guys are more sexist than non-nerdy guys because they’re less successful with women, and your proof is that there are a bunch of nerdy Republicans and fundamentalists who pass policies that are bad for women. What I can’t figure out is why a thread about Nice Guys, one type of sexist men, has turned into an argument about whether Nice Guys being the only or most sexist type of men. And what I’m getting from your argument is that they are. Am I wrong so far?
Now the reason I thought there was a thread devoted to Nice Guys in the first place is that they are often less obviously sexist than other types of men, such as stereotypical jocks and frat boys. And Nice Guys tend to be overrepresented in the anti-feminist men who come to feminist blogs to complain that women really have all the power since they can’t get laid.
And a big chunk of this thread was devoted to the unbelievably patient Mandolin and Ampersand explaining why viewing sex as something that men get from women is sexist. Which is the basis of my problem with what you’re saying. Sex is not something that men get from women, whether they’re Nice Guys or not. When we assume that non-Nice Guys (regardless of whether they are feminists) are not as sexist because they are getting sex from women, we are coming to a conclusion based on sexist assumptions.
Am I reading all of this correctly, because I’m beginning to feel like I’m in a parallel universe, and that maybe I have no clue what’s actually going on here. If that’s the case, let me know, and I’ll stop embarrassing myself.
Many liberal American feminists just love Clinton (and I’m seeing a resurgence of this in the American feminist blog-o-sphere – maybe out of disappointment with the current candidates). As Sailorman points out he was certainly better than Reagan, Bush Sr or Bush Jr, but just because he says he’s a feminist, doesn’t make it so. And I’m very glad that women understands and worships women – I mean where does he find time for at all between his affairs with women in subordinate positions (seriously, does this not raise a red flag for many feminists?). And as Brownfemipower points out in this burqagate era post, this is the same Bill Clinton who passed some really awful welfare legislation and militarized the border – all policies that wreaked havoc on women of colour in the US. I don’t care how much he loves his wife, or how much better he is than George W, his policies hurt a lot of women, and (white) liberals don’t seem to care. Most white liberal American feminists may have loved him, but that leaves a whole lot of us standing out in the cold (and takes us back to square one with the recent feminist blog-o-sphere fights about white feminism).
But that is a massive thread drift, and I apologize.
I’m really not interested in having some kind of referendum on whether or not gay men are misogynist. But I am wondering what this comment is in response to – is it something that I said, or are you responding to someone else?
debbie, yeah I was disagreeing with someone who said gays and women are the only people feminists don’t hate. thanks for your long response. you basically get what i’m saying which is men who understand women don’t become Nice Guys. i think the original post was about a Nice Guy who thought he deserved sex because frat boys and jocks raped women whereas he was a Nice Guy
hence the connection between sexism and men’s feelings of entitlement to sex and the comparison of nerds vs. frat boys and jocks, no? what i’ve observed is that men who are successful with women and this includes long, committed marriages understand women more than men who don’t. look at bill clinton, obama, edwards who have been married to one woman for a long time vs. the republican candidates who have been divorced and remarried oftentimes more than once. people brought up the fact that frat boys or jocks got laid a lot and i said women shouldn’t give it up or hang out with jerks no matter what and that feminism solves these problems. even if a frat boy or jock gets laid a lot without understanding women it doesn’t mean he can maintain a meaningful relationship or a lifelong marriage with a woman. isn’t it nice that feminism or equality always solves these problems? that’s why we’re here, right? on a feminist blog.
You’re using Bill Clinton as a an example of a man who understands and supports his wife? He’s the most famous philanderer I can think of. I mean, Bush has been married a long time and he’s…this is just silly.
Joe, I agree. I think this is turned into a Democrats = good, Republicans = bad thing. Personally, I have no use for any of them, but I can think of way better criticisms of them than their relationships with their wives or how many times they’ve been married. And if being married for a long time meant you weren’t a misogynist, I think the world would be a very different place.
Donna, I think you’re still missing my point. Up thread, you were arguing that nerds/Nice Guys were the most sexist. That the reason they were the most sexist is that women don’t want to have sex with them. So they have an ax to grind. I think this logic is sexist. So far, your defense has been that lots of MRAs, fundamentalists, and conservatives are nerds who don’t get laid, whereas Democrats are marginally more woman-friendly because they had more sex in high school. The only defense you have provided is that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have been married for a long time, and are less geeky than Karl Rove et al.
I have to agree with debbie, et al on this one: yeah, nerds are not LESS likely to be sexist than other men, but neither are they MORE likely to be sexist. Anyway, the idea that nerds don’t get laid is ridiculous–of course they do, and I have seen more than a few quite happy nerd marriages.
Also, just because a couple stays married a long time in no way means that their marriage is happy or misogyny-free. I think the idea that Clinton is not sexist is pretty naive. And aren’t Democrats edging towards anti-choice and other anti-woman stances to an alarming degree? Also, isn’t one of the biggest annoyances that feminist women have these days the so-called “progressive” men who are really no different in their attitudes towards women than any standard misogynist?
And how the hell do we know that jocks aren’t engaging in frequent online sexual harrassment? Just because they don’t frequent blogs like Alas doesn’t mean that they aren’t whooping it up on other types of forums.
I’m sorry Donna, because most of the time I agree with you, but this time you seem to be dealing in cartoon stereotypes, not reality.
Defining yourself, and evaluating your worth, in terms of whether you have had sex may be misogynistic. But it’s not ALWAYS misogynistic. It is certainly misogynistic if we use a view of the world where sex partners are unwilling, and people “access” them if they want to be happy.
However, defining yourself in terms of whether someone ELSE likes you enough to sleep with you is not misogynistic. Rather than taking away their agency, you’re granting them more.
It is also not misogynistic to understand that most relationships, once you pass a certain age, will eventually involve sex. This is simply reality. Anyone who can manage to maintain a relationship, to be happy, and to keep their partner happy for any length of time (whether they are male or female) will often end up having sex.
Similarly, wanting sex to be part of a relationship is not misogynistic. Sex is not magic. It’s OK to want sex to be part of a relationship, just like it’s OK to want anything ELSE to be part of a relationship. It’s OK break up with someone because they won’t have sex, or won’t snuggle, or won’t share their ice cream, or won’t trade back massages, or need to have their sheets tucked in. I know folks who would rather be with a porn star who won’t be touched outside the bedroom because they like sex; I know people who would rather be with a snuggler who wants sex every other month because they like to snuggle. Branding one as misogynistic and the other as commendable is arbitrary.
When people say they “want to have sex,” it is often a socially acceptable proxy for “I want someone to want to have sex with me.” And there is nothing inherently misogynistic about wanting to be liked. The problem of course is that saying “I want to be loved” or “I want people to like me” is not an acceptable statement for many youth.
When my friends say “I wish he would just kiss me already!” they don’t wish for a marionette to control the object of their desire. What they really mean is “I wish he would start liking me enough to kiss me!” They know—we all do—that there’s no love potion. But they don’t want to talk about feeling lonely, or hurt, or abandoned, or rejected, so they talk about sex.
This is the result of a variety of social problems. But nonetheless it is the real world—and it’s not really accurate (or fair) to blame the kids for the social problems that make it difficult for them to talk about their feelings.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
All the way down at Comment #347:
“La di la di la…it’s not in our interest* to listen to ya…doo dee doo dee doo….
Wait, you mean there’s a non-phallic head we could think with?? No fun!”
[*except for, y’know, how it is in one’s best interest to not rely on others to lay out a moral code of behavior for every. single. intersexual. interaction. Sure, it keeps the fingers busy to keep arguing that feminists are the problem with feminism, but, uh…does that really ever work out for anybody?
Just a thought. At this point, I’m seriously wondering. Some of us are on here defending our independent agency (remember, still not equal citizens…maybe by 2040 we’ll have an ERA or that matriarchy or something), but I can’t say I’m not baffled by the amount of dedication to the “Nothing Is Menz’ Responsibility, Including Mens’ Responsibilities” cause.]
debbie and crys t, yeah i hang out on feminist blogs a lot and observed the biggest misogynist troublemakers such as pro-life leaders, the pro-abstinence education christian fundamentalists, republicans, the supreme court pro-lifers, the MRAs, the frustrated nerd trolls on feminist blogs are the least successful with women, i.e., they are 1) physically unattractive or 2) divorced and cause the most trouble for women online and policy-wise.
Donna:
Does this apply to women, too? Do unattractive and divorced women turn into man-hating feminists (a proper subset of the set of all feminists)?
Also, since you referred to the men participating in this thread as evidence for your claim, it’s worth noting that Robert is, AFAIK, the only pro-life Christian Republican participating in this thread, and he claims to have had a considerable degree of success with women.
no, sexism is a legitimate grievance.
sexism is the problem from both sides: men’s entitlement is sexism and women putting up with sexist men is sexism.
feminism is the solution for all these problems.
Hey, I missed it: did I get implicitly called a nerdy men who fails with women? Damn. You called it. I guess it’s time to reveal who I really am.
Donna, I’m still not buying that it’s “unattractive” men or men who can’t get laid who are making all these anti-women policies. Men who get laid regularly, even frequently, make remarks and display behaviours that are every bit as piggish as the worst whiny Nice Guy nerd.
Case in point: as someone pointed out earlier (I think it was here, but possibly on a religion-related thread), a lot of the well-known fundies get laid all the damn time, as we all learn when their sex scandals blow up, either by star-struck followers or by buying women to use. A lot of conservative and/or Right Wing politicians get laid a lot, too, under similar circumstances. Just because you or I wouldn’t fuck them in this lifetime doesn’t mean there aren’t a shocking number of women out there who wouldn’t.
And since when do nerds have more control over public policy than wealthy ex-jock frat-boy types? Isn’t Bush an ex-jock? Weren’t Reagan and Daddy Bush as well? I’m betting if we looked at the leading male politicians and businessmen, we’d find more jocks than nerds in their numbers. After all, all that practice bullying anyone perceived as weaker ought to stand them in good stead in those worlds.
And what about when the Duke scandal blew up? Weren’t there tons of messaages from guys claiming to be on the team or knowing members of the team or being on other, similar sports teams, going round all the feminist blogs they could find, spewing hate?
The idea those men who can’t get laid are more likely to be sexist is repugnant on many levels. Just for a start, it’s the kneejerk flipside to the stereotype that Brandon pointed out about feminists being too ugly to get dates. It sounds like something made up just to hurt nerd guys’ feelings, not anything based on real observation. I’ve lived in this world for over 40 years now, and all the evidence I’ve seen clearly points out that it’s just not true: nerds as a whole are by no means better to women than jocks, but for god’s sake, it’s the ex-jocks who run the world and make the policies we live under. I can think of rich nerds, like Bill Gates, but unless I’m really out of touch, although he may be a money-grubber with a bad attitude as far as controlling software goes, but I’ve never heard of him trying to limit women’s rights, or even saying he wanted women’s rights to be limited.
Trying to lay the responsibility at the nerds’ feet is whitewashing where the power lies. Which makes no sense.
Trying to lay the responsibility at the nerds’ feet is whitewashing where the power lies. Which makes no sense.
Actually, I think that it is scapegoating. Scapegoating is a well-established way of unifying the group and making oneself feel better about things that are seemingly out of our control. Of course, that doesn’t make it make logical sense, but it does allow an understanding of it.
crys t – maybe I don’t know as much about Gates as I thought [or, maybe I’m just determined to derail this thread. Kidding! Sorry Amp! ;D] but I have an instinctive queasy response to ripping on Bill Gates. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Mac addict and I have no clue about his gender stances, except that his wife appears to be his equal partner in their charitable work – which is essentially his career these days, and the main difference is that his name is famouser – and that afaik he’s currently devoting his life to a “non-™ nice person” career of helping others. Like a really rich cyber-era Ma Teresa!
“Money-grubbing” doesn’t seem like quite the right word when the grubbed-money is largely being used to solve massively unsolvable problems in the developing world. In fact, he’s sort of a huge catalyst in the peacefully-approaching matriarchy, in terms of funding microloans and economic opportunity for women.
This has been your irregularly scheduled charitable distraction. Give to care.org for further warm fuzzies ;)
crys t,
It’s not just getting laid it’s long, meaningful marriages with women. Where the husband and wife understand each other because of a better understanding of men and women.
You don’t need a deeper understanding of women to have a good marriage with your wife. You need a deeper understanding of your wife.
pheeno: right on.
Defenestrated: Obviously, it’s Amp’s blog, so he gets to make the rules. I’m not sure, however, that you could be accused of “derailing” a thread that you (or at least one of your comments) started.
No, Donna: you stated more than once in your previous messages that nerds were more responsible than jocks/frat boys were for bringing in anti-woman public policies. What evidence do you have to support that? It contradicts pretty much everything we know by looking at the histories of most male politicians and other men of influence in public life today.
For that matter, what evidence do you have that jocks are any better than nerds at maintaining “long, meaningful relationships with women”? What indication have you ever had that frat boy/jock types in general have ANY understanding of women?
And since when does “access to lots of pussy” mean that a man likes/cares about/understands women?
Finally, since when does “long”=”meaningful” when it comes to male/female relationships?
Defenestrated: I didn’t “rip on” Gates except regarding the software thing. I actually said that I’d never heard of him expressing anti-women views or supporting anti-women policies.
Paul – it’s a free country. You may accuse me of anything you want ;)
crys t – don’t worry, I wasn’t ripping on you, either. The internet needs some sort of “tone” recognition so that we can all see when we’re agreeing, doesn’t it?
[paging mr. gates – we have a new job for you!]
crys t, you haven’t read all my comments here and that’s…okay.
No, Donna: you stated more than once in your previous messages that nerds were more responsible than jocks/frat boys were for bringing in anti-woman public policies. What evidence do you have to support that? It contradicts pretty much everything we know by looking at the histories of most male politicians and other men of influence in public life today.
Through observation on feminist blogs. Men who don’t understand women i.e. anti-feminists cause the most trouble for women. Look at the pro-life leaders, Christian fundamentalist pro-abstinence advocates, the Supreme Court pro-lifers, the Republicans who are divorced and remarried, the MRA trolls on blogs. Just look at them. Or look at the fact they’re so bitterly divorced.
For that matter, what evidence do you have that jocks are any better than nerds at maintaining “long, meaningful relationships with women”? What indication have you ever had that frat boy/jock types in general have ANY understanding of women?
I said the exact opposite. Jocks get laid but women shouldn’t put up with BS. I loathe fraternities and frat boys and never get near them. Women should instead be feminists. Men who understand women do not harrass women online or make anti-woman policy. Men who understand women including their wives i.e. feminist men stay married the longest. I have some personal bias in this too. My dad and bros will be married to one woman forever because they’re feminists. Their wives know they’re lucky.
Donna, I don’t think you’ve actually addressed anyone’s points.
– feminist blogs are not the real world. Feminist blogs attract a higher than average number of anti-feminists. Some of them are nerds. Probably more of them are nerds than not because nerds spend more time on the internet reading blogs. That tells us….nothing about anything else.
– lots of Democrats (including your number one example Bill Clinton) and progressives don’t have long term, monogamous relationships with women. Some of them may even be bitterly divorced. Again, this tells us very little.
– lots of divorced men (and women, but we’re tlaking about men here) are not anti-feminists, anti-choicers, or MRAs.
– many anti-choicers, anti-feminists (and some MRAs – definitely a movement that draws a lot of its membership from bitterly divorced men. Most of them were probably misogynists long before their divorces), are happily married.
– getting divorced is not a moral failure. It is certainly not inherently anti-feminist.
Being able to sustain a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship doesn’t mean you understand women or feminism. Period. It may mean that you’re heterosexual. It may mean that you understand your wife. It may mean that you’re inclined towards and/or value monogamy. It may mean that you happened to find someone you’re pretty compatable with and want to spend the rest of your life with them. That’s it. It doesn’t make you a morally superior human being (and yes, that’s exactly what your comment implied).
Using one’s ability to sustain a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship as a guideline for attitudes towards women and feminism is heterosexist. And silly.
Thank you for saying this.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
So a nice guy who wants a romantic/sexual relationship isn’t a nice guy?
Hmm. If they were “nice guys” they undoubtedly wanted relationships, not necessarily of the 3-month variety.
/shrug
IvanIV
Holly wrote:
“The usual complaint you hear then is, “oh my god, how can I win? I’m not supposed to be a jerk, and I’m not supposed to be nice either! I give up!” The answer is, that’s right, you can’t “win.” There is nothing to win, this is not a game with a boss monster and a high score. If you expect (or feel entitled to) sex out of interactions with women, you are an asshole — and quite possibly not the kind ANYONE likes.
On the other hand, if you’re not an asshole of that sort, you might meet someone you like and who likes you, and you might manage to socially interact in a way where you’re both comfortable and can express mutual interest, and then maybe you can have a relationship that includes romance and/or sex! Fancy that! ”
Feeling frustated with regards to what behaviour makes a woman willing to have a sexual/romantic relationship with you (“oh my god, how can I win? I’m not supposed to be a jerk, and I’m not supposed to be nice either! I give up!”) does not necessarily mean you have an “entitled” attitude. You think the problem with this is that they see something to “win” and it should not be about that at all. From what it sounds like, you don’t think sex should be pursued or perceived by men as any kind of goal at all, just somehting we should accept as what “might” or “maybe” will happen by just interacting from women without said goal in mind.
You ask too much. You seem to want men to approach sex in this manner:
“I’m not gonna actually try to GET water. I’m not going to be the least bothered when I turn the tap and nothing comes out. I will not figure out how to dig a well or find a river. Hey if theres no water to drink why should I even be thirsty? Should it JUST HAPPEN to rain and I HAPPEN to be outside and I HAPPEN to holding a glass at the time…WHEN and IF I find myself in that circumstance….. well then i may drink, then I may acknowledge thirst.”
Yeah i know sex is not a need like water. I still think it’s unreasonable to epect people to see sex in the way mentioned above. It doesnt work that way.
It’s not about being entitled to anything. Its not about saying interacting with women is only useful to get sex. We should treat people as people and not solely as gatekeepers. But however much that may be true, there are basic drives that you can’t expect people to ignore.
For instance, in order to enjoy life I might need a certain amount of income. Whether or not I get this income, which is a matter of great importance to me, hinges on the decisions of indivivuals as to wether or not to hire me. Now I may, and should, regard those people as people. But wether or not they hire me is always gonna be an important factor. Of course I’m gonna be anticapting getting hired when I interact with them. Of course I’m gonna want to know what will make them hire me. Of course I’m gonna be flustered if I find their hiring practices and policies confusing. You can’t expect me not to feel a tad negative if they say “You’re a great person but your not what our company’s looking for. But we’re buddies!”. There are going to be times when being friends with potential employers is not going to feel like enough. And if the employers rant about honesty and integrity and praise mine, and continue to hire dishonest men, men who are constantly embezzling money and whatnot, if those unscrupulous guys get hired and get to enjoy the nice house and car while I, with all my honesty and integrity, am still stuck eating cat food in my rat-infested apartment….well dont you think I would feel…wether rational or not..a sense of unfairness? To have such feelings may not be justifiable but they are certainly understandable. To act all horrified and indignant that somebody in that scenario would feel slighted is to expect them to nullify a opwerful and legitimate desire of life.
Feeling frustated with regards to what behaviour makes a woman willing to have a sexual/romantic relationship with you (“oh my god, how can I win? I’m not supposed to be a jerk, and I’m not supposed to be nice either! I give up!”) does not necessarily mean you have an “entitled” attitude.
True. It could mean you’re a complete moron or utterly lack social skills, and therefore can’t see any possible way of behaving other than “asshole” or “faux-nice wimpy”.
Not too many companies are going to say “We don’t want to hire you, but let’s be friends”. That’s the difference between business and interpersonal relationships. If you can’t get that either, see previous remark.
Mythago:
“True. It could mean you’re a complete moron or utterly lack social skills, and therefore can’t see any possible way of behaving other than “asshole” or “faux-nice wimpy”.”
You know if you believe in treating people with respect now is a good time to consider it. I’m talking about lacking social skills. Lack of social skills is a weakness, not a vice, and those lacking (guilty as charged) don’t derserve to be called morons.
Now I cant really say i think there are two ways to behave. There is…oh how can I say this….diferent degrees of the pendulum. Simply, I like others, have an understanable difficultuy finding that “center” between asshole and wimp that would secure sexual success without pissing people off. Nothing to be ashamed of really.
“Not too many companies are going to say “We don’t want to hire you, but let’s be friends”. That’s the difference between business and interpersonal relationships. If you can’t get that either, see previous remark.”
Well I’m aware of this difference. You’ll have to pardon my moronic lack of social skills, but if your intent on pointing out this different was to refute the point of the metaphor, although I do see your point somewhat, it doesnt totally dismantle the metaphor or its point.
deleted due to accidental double post
Well, LB, maybe if you could see that there’s a whole lot more than “different degrees on a pendulum,” you might be able to break out of the box of Unpleasant Man Behaviour. Why don’t you try considering behaviour as not linear but in 3-D–as a sphere perhaps, that expands out from all points so there are infinite intersections and combinations?
Just elminate the concept of “guy behaviour” from your life altogether: it’ll make things easier, and I don’t mean only in your sexual/emotional relations with women.
And IvanGronzy: No. A guy who *resents* to this day the fact that a woman didn’t want to fuck him all those years ago is not in any way “nice.” You’re deliberatly ignoring the point that her friendship, that she’d believed all that time was being valued, was treated as worthless because pussy didn’t come attached to it.
I don’t get it. I’ve never been in an employment relationship that wasn’t also an interpersonal relationship. Moreover, I think LB identifies a relevant similarity between the two relationships: people seek employment and sex, yet no one has a duty to provide people with either.
I find friends who have been without employment and/or sex for a while can get pretty bitter at times. Rationally, I can’t see why they’d feel bitter unless they harbored a sense of entitlement to different circumstances. So I think that Mythago has a point.
But I suspect their feelings are not wholly rational. Rather, I think that they feel frustrated, and these feelings find expression in many ways. They direct them inward, questioning their own self-worth. And they direct them outward, questioning the fairness of the world. I suspect much of this “Nice Guy” discussion has been a manifestation of this second part of the reaction to frustration. I don’t mean to argue that there is NOTHING rational about these responses. Yes, often people could benefit from re-evaluating themselves. And yes, the world isn’t fair. But I sense that people will find ways to express frustration, rational or not.
On the other side of the equation, [Western?] people value a sense of autonomy and resist the idea that they are influenced by outside circumstances. This is especially true in the context of interpersonal relationships. We harbor romantic/grandiose notions about our ability to judge another person based on face-to-face interactions. We may scoff at George Bush’s claim to be able to take the measure of Putin’s soul simply by looking into his eyes, yet we know jurors engage in this same reasoning every day.
So why should we be offended to think that lawyers hire jury consultants or that politicians hire image consultants? Why do people hide the fact that they’ve hired a career consultant or a therapist? Why was the heiress in the romantic comedy Hitch offended to learn that her boyfriend had hired a romance consultant?
My boss is more likely to give good performance reviews to people who schmooze with her in the morning; yet my boss would regard it as manipulative and inauthentic if she knew that I’m schmoozing for the purpose of getting the good performance review. Jurors regard a defendant as less threatening if he wears a jacket that is slightly too big for him; but jurors would regard it as manipulative and inauthentic if they realized he picked his clothes for the purpose of producing this effect. Voters were less likely to vote for Al Gore because they regarded him as stiff; but voters regarded it as manipulative and inauthentic when it was revealed that he attempted to alter his affect in order to influence voters. And any given woman might look for certain things in a potential sex partner, yet might regard it as manipulative and inauthentic if guys tried to conform their behavior accordingly for purposes of attracting sex.
So what happens when the pretenses are disclosed? Does my boss stop and reflect, “You know, I wouldn’t be subject to manipulation if I didn’t insist on using irrelevant criteria like schmoozing as a basis upon which to give performance reviews”? Do the jurors stop and reflect, “You know, we wouldn’t be subject to manipulation if we didn’t use irrelevant criteria like attire to judge a defendant?” Do voters stop and reflect, “You know, we wouldn’t be subject to manipulation if we didn’t use irrelevant criteria like affect when voting”?
Some do, I guess. When people’s romantic/grandiose ideas about interpersonal relationships are frustrated, some use the opportunity for self-reflection. But, as with other examples of frustration, others project their frustrations outward and blame the world for not conforming to their expectations. How DARE people respond rationally to my irrational behavior?!?
And so it is with dating. When a newspaper discloses that Hitch is providing the boyfriend with strategies for pursuing the heiress, the heiress is scandalized. With nothing left but candor, Hitch tells her that the only chance the boyfriend ever had to attract the heiress’ attention was with Hitch’s assistance. She immediately denies the suggestion; it offends her romantic/grandiose ideas of interpersonal relationships. But upon reflection, she relents. And once assured that at least some aspects of the boyfriend’s behaviors were “authentic,” the relationship resumes and they get married.
Of course, that’s just the movies. In real life, if you want to make someone angry, you can lie to them; but if you want to really piss them off, ask them to face the truth. My wife enjoys a variety of sexual practices. That’s great; it’s also challenging for me to determine what she’s in the mood for. And even after 15 years of marriage, she’s chagrined to have to tell me. Of course at a rational level she knows that I can’t read her mind, but I sense that candor does not conform to her romantic/grandiose ideas about how lovemaking should happen. So the relationship remains a work in progress – for good and ill.
Well written, Nobody. This corellates to other message boards I’m reading about “The Seduction Community”….sort of what Hitch is doing on a grander scale. Apparently some….mostly of the radical feminist persuasion, actually hate this as they see it as manipulation. They are even going so far as to try too organise and pool, how you say, counter-stratagies against “Pick Up Artist” (PUA) techniques. I would like to talk about my opinions on it, but that would drag on and be a bit off topic.
I don’t get it. I’ve never been in an employment relationship that wasn’t also an interpersonal relationship.
If your romantic relationships are just like your business relationships, I don’t think we have much common ground here.
LB, the problem you’re having here is seeing your choices as somewhere between “asshole” and “wimp”, and trying to imitate some mode of behavior that you think will get you a date. If the issue is that you don’t have social skills, you work on that, instead of trying to judge how much of an asshole you should be to get laid.
I’m an ex-nice guy (not the TM kind), with the perk that I used to be asexual too, and I’m an ex-guy as well. I didn’t blame anyone but myself for my lack of success in relationships. Why not? Everyone blamed me too it seemed.
It was my fault for looking girly (body-wise), for acting feminine (without knowing of it – and yes I’m that naive, but not stupid) enough so to be considered gay (a term I didn’t know the meaning of) and for having all this male privilege that entitled me to be a potential violent rapist (smaller and probably weaker than his potential victims to boot).
I was not insensitive, I mostly kept to myself, I ate by myself all of high school (and in elementary I ate at home), I got nice grades, I didn’t get into fights and into sex-wars debate I took a neutral ‘neither for one or the other stance’. I probably did have misogyny, and that’s not excusable by the fact that I had more misandry going on. I worked on that (on both really), but I’m still not perfect. I’m not a MRA, nor strictly a feminist. I’m an idealist. Feminist and trans (and plain gender) theories just seem to hold my interest more since they touch me directly.
I thought nice guys meant the ‘not TM’ kind. The kind for the virtue of it. But maybe I wasn’t a nice guy then. I don’t know what I was. I don’t think it has leeway for asexuality in the theory (or I haven’t seen it). I didn’t feel entitled to a relationship, and actually had no idea how to make one happen, it didn’t help that I hardly went out at all (maybe I had a reason not to though). I seriously wanted to get married to my first love, but had no idea at all who or what gender my first love would be – but by my cultural indoctrination, it would have been a woman.
I guess I’m really an oddity. Oh and it turns out that (now) I’m mostly attracted to men, and I say mostly to not kill off the possibility that a woman could hold my interest romantically. Estrogen gave me a libido, after all that talk about testosterone giving one (not here, but in general, in studies/media), well, like I said, I’m an oddity.
I don’t have enough life experience to say I understand nice guys (TM or not), I do think however, that as long as gender roles are understood as something to never deviate from, people will be scared to even associate with those that purposefully or not deviate from said norms (they don’t want to suffer the effects of it, but by being scared of it they participate to it’s perpetuation).
Starts pretty young, a 5 years old little girl who lives in my building, who learned through my youngest brother (of 14) that I had transitioned, was suddenly always staring at me (only after learning of it) and even told me once in my face in passing that ‘I was ugly’.
(and note that unless everyone is complicit in dishonesty around me, no one can tell)
She can demonize me, ‘other’ me, and feel better about herself. “She’s not like me.” Isn’t this what power dynamics are all about? You secure the power for yourself by denying to others, and what better way to deny it than to the ‘other’ them?
Schala
God, you Nice Guys: enough with the lame excuses about how it’s Not Your Fault. It IS.
The entire point is that if you are shy/socially awkward/socially clueless/whatever, there’s no problem in trying to deal with that and work that out. The problem is when you see the “solution” as learning “strategies” that will guarantee you access to pussy. There is EVERYTHING wrong with that.
There is also everything wrong with assuming that you have some sort of entitlement to pussy and that women, individually or en masse, are obliged supply it to you and/or that those women who do refuse to put out to you are somehow blameworthy. NO WOMAN is EVER obliged to so much as give you the time of day.
Get it?
And if they don’t, well, too bad for you. Learn how to be a human that other humans appreciate being around, but DON’T learn how to fake being that pleasant human solely as a tool to get laid. If you ignore that advice and learn assholish “techniques” and pick-up strategies, don’t keep crying to us about how mean feminists are when it’s you who is incapable of seeing women as human.
Isn’t that sort of what he (I assume he) is asking?
LB is saying that he has difficulty positioning himself accurately between the extremes of socially submissive and socially aggressive.
Mythago says that instead of worrying about that, he should work on “social skills.” That appears to be the same thing.
So then I’m guessing that the problem isn’t THAT LB is working on social skills, it’ the method of testing that annoys folks. Again: I’m not sure that what LB is suggesting is so unusual. Or odd.
Case: Bob has no social skills; he is shy and bit of a loser. Bob knows he has no social skills because Bob has no friends; he tries to make friends but fails. Bob wants some friends (poor Bob.) He wants to get invited to football nights at the guys’ houses.
Bob “tries to improve” his social skills and his standing at social events. He attends Toastmasters to gain self confidence at public gatherings. He reads Harpers to learn statistics that he can drop at parties, to seem important. He listens to Howard Stern to learn how to insult others and gain self confidence.
Bob thinks his social skills are improving and that he has better social standing. How will Bob be able to tell if it works? Well, if the problem was actually Bob’s social skills, then he’ll be able to tell because he will be able to make friends. He will get invited to football night. Lucky Bob!
Is Bob acting inappropriately?
Is Bob claiming he is “entitled” to friends?
Are Bob’s new friends being taken advantage of? After all, Bob just wanted “some friends” when he started work on his social skills, and he hadn’t even met them yet!
Is Bob failing to see his new friends as human?
My answers: No, no, no, and no. Bob’s just being normal and trying to improve himself as best as he can. None of us have a magic mirror. ALL of us base at least a bit of self-assessment on the responses of other people.
I’d be curious to hear the responses of others, especially those who wouldn’t answer “no.”
If, like me, you answered “no” to all of them–why would the whole equation change just because Bob wants a girlfriend instead of a male friend? Why would it change just because Bob wants someone to “like him and think he’s cute” instead of “like him and think he’s a stand-up macho guy?” Why would it change just because an indicator of closeness is “being invited by a girl to come over, and have sex” versus “being invited by a man to come over for football night and drink beer?
I mean, I can see that you might reach different conclusions–sex is not the same as conversation. But some people seem to be suggesting that it’s a whole different paradigm, that the entire way of approaching it is different–and I’m really not getting that.
If you’re in a long term relationship–I am and I speak from experience–then chances are that over the years/decades, you’ve made some pretty major changes to please your partner. Maybe you’ve become less (or more) aggressive. Maybe you’ve become less (or more) adventurous in or out of bed. Maybe you’ve agreed to eat more Chinese food, or less garlic. Maybe you’ve agreed to spend more (or less) time with friends, in social situations, alone, together, etc…
When you make those changes, you’re doing them to make someone ELSE happy. Which is a good thing; that’s part of what relationships are about. And you can TELL that you’re doing the “right” things by how happy they get, how much they smile at you; how your sex life is; whether they want to hold your hand at the theater.
Maybe it starts on the first date. You try to break the ice by telling a fart joke–they respond poorly, so you don’t tell another fart joke again. What would be wrong with that?
That desire to better yourself is normal. The tactic of looking to another’s responses to judge its effectiveness is normal It doesn’t suddenly become horribly creepy and inappropriate just because you’re not in a committed relationship.
Crys T: I’m a transsexual (and probably intersex) woman who used to be in the social position of being perceived as worthless. Transition alone has at least changed the physical perception of me (I’m apparently seen as more physically desirable now although my body is the same) and I don’t feel entitled to pussy, I explicitly said I was mostly attracted to men, I think.
I don’t want to get into reasons for my transition, because those are personal and out of the scope of this discussion.
I’m just saying I have an easier time now compared to before. I’ve been told by some that my genuineness was a factor in finding me attractive. I hold no pretense. Funny that some people (indirectly) accuse me of being ‘all pretense’ *because* I transitioned. I find the contrast ironic. I do agree that I feel much more myself now.
So I’m not blaming those reasons to not get pussy – as I wasn’t really interested in pussy. I was socially awkward and interested in fitting in. At some point I tried to make compromises to appear better socially – they either didn’t work or they felt too wrong to even do it.
I dated a girl when I was 16 (she too was 16), we were very physically similar (almost same height, same weight). I had longish hair, she had long hair. Maybe I got attracted to her image instead of her. I didn’t see myself have sex with her – even when the opportunity came and she wanted nothing more. I felt a lot of pressure to do it, but did not cave in. Eventually broke up out of mutual disinterest.
It took me years to learn about asexality, transsexuality and intersexuality (as in intersex), but it explained a great deal to me to learn about those. I decided to transition instead of suicide. Maybe I should have died? I had nothing to lose, except I knew it would have hurt my mother and brothers, maybe fatally so for my mother. I would have really hated myself (yes even being dead) for causing someone’s death indirectly.
Transitioning is a compromise to me, compared to being reborn from the start with the right bits. I, however, think that this can be a learning experience too, because the point of view is unique. I said I was an ex-nice guy. I’m only arguing from the socially awkward position of being ostracized and bullied continually for things outside my control.
Schala
Sailorman – You are looking at this from an entirely different framework. Let’s take your example of a guy genuinely wanting friends to hang out with — there’s certainly nothing wrong with anything the guy in your situation has done. But, that’s not what the Nice Guys (TM) are doing. Rather, their scenario is more like this:
Bob really wants to watch football games on a big screen plasma TV. He doesn’t want to buy one himself, he just wants to watch the games on someone else’s plasma TV. Bob finds out that his co-worker Jim has a plasma TV — 72 inches!! And he has friends over every Sunday to watch the games. Bob doesn’t really have much interest in Jim — he’s an OK guy, but they don’t have much in common, no common interests, different backgrounds, different politics. But Bob finds out that Jim is really into stamp collecting (something Bob can’t understand at all). Bob approaches Jim and starts talking about stamps with him, feigning interest. He starts inviting Jim over to “teach him” about stamps, because Bob wants to learn more about this incredibly fascinating subject. He pretends he doesn’t have any interest in watching football on the big screen TV. He asks Jim to do go to a stamp museum on Sunday, feigning ignorance about the big game coming up. He acts surprised when Jim mentions wanting to watch the game that day, and even more surprised when Jim invites him over. But, of course, he goes. And once football season ends, so does his “friendship” with Jim.
Bob is a Nice Guy (TM)
No debate there, Eliza. (actually, I’d call your Bob an “Asshole (TM)” or a “User (TM)” but who’s to be picky? heh.)
But what i see every now and then is someone saying “bob doesn’t like stamps, he’s just a Nice Guy (TM)! Down with Bob!”
“Yes I DO like stamps!,” Bob says. “I like stamps because you taught me to like stamps. It’s true I also like football; I like TVs; there are many things I like about lots of people.”
“NO!” says the accuser. “You don’t REALLY like stamps, or you wouldn’t look at the TV.”
I dunno. I can really see how assholes like “your” Bob turn people off. But I can also really see how “my” Bob would get screwed over by a general application of Nice Guy (TM) standards.
I guess assigning Nice Guy status just involves the usual choice between Type I and Type II error. Would you rather have more worthy-of-relationship people being lonely and alone (false “Nice Guy” conviction?) Or would you rather have more worthy-of-respect people ending up, unknowingly, with slimy partners (false “Nice Guy” acquittal?) Neither option is appealing, so it’s unsurprising that minds differ on where the balance should be.
Thanks Sailorman, and especially Eliza, for some really helpful analogies. This really clarifies the distinction for me.
Perhaps he’s all three — but he is most definitely what is meant when using the term Nice Guy (TM).
I’m sorry, but other than a few self-proclaimed “nice guys” claiming that this is what is being said, I just don’t see this anywhere — not in this thread, nor any other place I’ve seen this discussion.
But, I will say that if Bob really does start to genuinely like stamps, great. Good for him. But if Jim discovers later that Bob started out by lying about liking stamps just to watch his TV, he really has no right to get all bent out of shape if Jim decides to dump him as a friend. But, Bob the Nice Guy (TM) will usually take this opportunity to go on and on about how big plasma-screen TV owners are just assholes who don’t want to give non-plasma-screen-TV-owners a chance and they’re all just selfish. They don’t even realize that they could have just approached Jim and said, “hey, my name is Bob, word around the office is you have some people over on Sundays to watch the game on your big plasma-screen TV. I love football. Would it be ok if I joined you sometime?” Maybe Jim would be an asshole about it, but it’s also possible that he’d say, “yeah, by all means, the more the merrier.” And who knows. Jim and Bob may even have ended up being great friends, and during the course of the friendship Jim could have taught Bob all about stamp collecting, thus allowing Bob to gain a new hobby. But no, Bob the Nice Guy (TM) would rather spend his energy on manipulating Jim, and then getting pissed off when he gets called on it. And worse, blaming Jim for making him be a manipulative asshole.
I don’t see where “your” Bob would be called a Nice Guy (TM).
difficulty positioning himself accurately between the extremes of socially submissive and socially aggressive.
this approach is all wrong. a shy person should not decide to be more passive or aggressive. a shy person might want to be more assertive or to have more confidence in himself by liking himself more and treating women like human beings. deciding to be more passive or aggressive objectifies women as if they have to be a more a passive or aggressive salesman to pick up women.
Eliza, youve touched on somthing I’ve been thinking about. i believe that there is a misconception anti-“Nice Guys” feminists have about “Nice Guys”. Nice Guys are somehow deceptive or faking intentions. As far as I’m concerned its not that way at all. Take me. You can say I pretty much have taken the “NG” approach. I do so now more out of conditioning than I do out of hope that it will be successful. Now I have made quite a platonic harem of female friends (I got along better with girls I guess). Do I wish I could be “more” with some of these girls? Yes. Does that mean I was/am only pretending to be their friend? That I somehow devaulue them? No. I still value their friendship greatly. Basically, what mentality/intentions do I, and other “Nice Guy” types have? According to the way anti-“Nice Guy” feminists talk about, the assumption is this:
“Basically I’m gonna act like a friend to this peice of ass. Pretend to agree with her and like stuff with her. Of course I have to endure this performance to get to the ass. But if I act like her friend she’ll have to give it up.”
Wrong
I think its more along this line.
“I’m gonna interact with this fellow human being and get to know them. Maybe we’re “soulmates”…. maybe we’ll click. When we get to know eachother maybe she will find me an interesting person. If our personalities are compatible this could turn into a relationship…a friendship, or more than that (Oh how I DO HOPE its the latter!)”
This sounds very much like what Holly posted way back as an acceptable way of interacting with women. When feminists do talk of how men are to find potential mates (which they usually shun from talking about fortright), its along those lines….respect women….talk to them as humans and equals…..establish a connection, a relationship. “Just be friends without rushing into sex, and someday you might find a wonderful life partner” to paraphrase “Dim Undercellar” over at the “Den Of The Biting Beaver” (a blog). That was all the “Nice Guy” was trying to do.
The problem?
Well first off the way the Nice Guy interacts and establishes realtionship (and I’m not necessarily talking about his general method of interacting as stated above but the more complex way of HOW he interacts), unknowingly to him, or perhaps even to her, shuts down the womans view of him as “potential mate” so even if the relationship HAD potential to cross into the sexual/romantic realm, the NG’s lack of social skills/seduction prowess/general attractiveness/whatever keeps it from becoming this…unknown to the NG.
Now secondly…and i guess its because men are more sexually driven….as the friendship grows, as they become more emotionaly and mentally intimate…the NG is not only more optomistic that it will blossom into love (or maybe “f-buddies” or soemthing like that), but is more attracted to his friend now that he knows she is also fun and comfortable to be around and great to talk to etc. Interestingly, she seems to think he’s those things too, but as he cannot understand the different way she is thinking, will naturally think “Surely the fact that I’m fun/interesting/intimate/comfortable might potentially make her hot for me the same way the fact that she’s fun/interesting/comfortable/intimate makes me hot for her”
Of course the inevitable happens. He misreads her affection, gets his hopes up, then gets it dashed down when she says she only sees him as a friend/dates somebody else. So “being-nice-doesn’t-mean-she-should-reward-him-with-sex-blah-blah-blah”–IT STILL STINGS! Especially if said somebody else winds up screwing her over. And this happens again and again and the NG is sexually frustrated and deprived of romantic affection….meanwhile the “Bitches aint shit but hoes and tricks” crowd are having women claw at eachother over them. So the NG is just going to go through life saying “Oh well, its not like I was entitled anyway” PLEASE! He’s gonna get at least a wee bit upset. But when he opens his mouth (metaphorically) and says “I don’t like this. This isn’t fair.” he gets slapped in the face again when his problems are met with jeers and disdain and saying HE’S the one with the problem.
But I think I understand from the womans perspective. I’ve heard that women really do value platonic relationships with men. Perhaps women, always being pursued for sex by men, appreciate a relationship without that baggage. Perhaps the male friend gives them the feeling of being regarded as of more worth than their body. They’re being appreciated as people. When the Nice Guy vents his frustration all the ugliness of being seen as a means to end that they have to put up with from other men surge out. And they see the NG in the darkest light. Doctor Jekyll has become Mr. Hyde. What the women thought was a kind man who respected women and who appreciated a relationship with a woman simply for her intellect and what have you, turned out to be just another guy after her pussy. Which of course is might be the source of all the hostility about “Nice Guys” not really being nice and not respecting women after all and whathaveyou. This view, of course I personally look upon as being somewhat innaccurate. But I guess I am looking at it through the Nice Guy’s (my) eyes.
Then some Nice Guys say “I can’t live like this anymore. My sexual and romantic desires are not being met. Obviously theres something in the method I interact with women is destroying their ability to see me as a potential mate. I must see what is causing this and change it. It was great just talking to women and being myself. It was good making these friends. But I want passion. I want sensual touch. I want to be kissed. I want sex. I want a woman to be IN LOVE with me. If i have to become “sleazy pick-up artist” to make a woman feel for me what i desperately want her to feel, so be it”. Then, much to my surprise, this too is greeted with howls of protest, mockery, and indignation from various people. And thats REALLY messed up! But I’ll get into that some other time (maybe).
Mythago says that instead of worrying about that, he should work on “social skills.” That appears to be the same thing.
No, it’s not the same thing. Social skills are useful and applicable to social interactions in general–not just the ones directed at getting laid. And it’s reasonable to think that somebody who has “social skills” deficits doesn’t shine everywhere else EXCEPT the picking-up-girls part.
The ‘howls of protest’ that so upset LB are coming from his ultimate, and incorrect, conclusion–that the solution to his problems is not “what can I fix about myself?” but “I just need to push the right chick-button, like those pickup artists do.”
I don’t think of shyness as a particularly negative trait that needs fixing. I am shy and I don’t particularly mind it in itself, nor do others in general (in regards to me).
Schala
social skills and liking oneself help because if you like yourself you’re more likely to treat women as human beings.
in other words, there’s nothing worse than a shy guy who’s also sexist. acting aggressive and entitled will make things worse not better. respect for women is a win-win.
Well, being shy doesn’t seem to matter because I’m perceived and identify as a girl. I’m not too fond of double-standards like this where a shy girl can get guys to like her, but a shy guy can’t get girls to like him. Not the only double-standard by any means. I started noticing double-standards as I was a pre-teen and a teen and denouncing them as unjust.
I also don’t think the answer is to deny shy girls opportunities to make it equal. It would rather be the opposite, don’t deny shy guys them. This would come from how we raise kids to think of shyness as unmasculine (ie undesirable for a male), it just shouldn’t matter. Sure, it’s still useful to give tools to those who want to avoid being shy, but to proscribe everyone to ‘just don’t be shy and everything will be fine’ is pretty forceful.
It’s not like people decide to be shy or not shy like they decide to buy 2% or 3.25% milk.
Sexism, while it can be correlated, I believe is not a direct result of being shy. And shy people usually treat others as human beings. Actually from my experience, shy people usually regard others as higher-than-themselves, as more important, as more worthy of concern. They’re not ‘better’ (or worse) for it or definitely have self-esteem issues (but it’s a possibility for some). I know I view my needs as less important than someone else’s, I feel others are entitled to happiness and I would be as well if there happens to be some left afterwards. This is how I work.
I defend my point of view if it’s concerning my very survival. If someone who has any form of power over me, denies my existence, then I feel threatened (and I believe, justly so) and thus will vehemently defend myself. I believe they would as well if the situation was reversed. Otherwise I just add thoughts, reasonings, beliefs and try to learn from a discussion, while mostly lurking. I try not to be rude, sexist, mysogynist, racist, classist and try also not to impose my ideas, which I always consider opinions based on my personal point of reference (which I said earlier was unique, not always right).
Schala
i didn’t say there’s a correlation between shy guys and sexism but that’s where the conversation was headed with this talk of passive and aggressive tactics. take heart, shy guys. if there’s a correlation between shyness and femininity as you say there is, schala, check out this article that’s been making the rounds.
Feminine guys better for long-term love: study
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070808/
wl_uk_afp/britainsciencemen_070808122024
I said that feminity and shyness were both present in my case and definitely not something that impeded my looking for dates (not that I’m really looking any hard) – but all that depending on being perceived as female.
The study seems to favor androgeny, saying it’s more healthy and less prone to immaturity.
People might care wether I’m mature or not, but the prospects I get are from all angles, people who want one-night stands to people who want more lasting or serious relationships, and my shyness has not impacted this. My transition status definitely has though.
The fact of my transition brushes less people away than my previous shyness (when perceived as male) though (and that’s saying something, when more than half of ‘prospects’ decide to abandon the idea once they learn of my transition).
I’ve yet to know for sure that it isn’t my androgeny that contributed to it more than my shyness, or both combined (I’d say the latter). So my stance remains uncertain.
I can’t say i have extensive or verifiable data. All I know is that I was generally treated as an outcast, and now I’m considered mainstream (at least at first glance).
Hmm, and one last thing. People at the end of their teens, who are shy and seek a solid lasting relationship might be disappointed that most of their same-age peers are mostly looking for fun or less-serious (nothing about marriage) relationships. Especially if there is less familial or religious pressure to settling down. This seems to become less true as people age, but in essence it means the love life of a shy guy might start in his late 20s, or 30s, when more people desire to settle down.
Not that a shy girl might not experience the same, but she’ll be more easily excused her shyness, since she doesn’t need to prove masculinity or dominance to be considered worthy. Guys won’t avoid shy girls in general (from my experience).
Schala
Eliza:
“he just wants to watch the games on someone else’s plasma TV”
A plasma TV is a thing. Sex is an activity. So let’s tweak your example a little, and have Jim be, or do, something that Bob admires or is somehow drawn to. For example Jim moves into the house next to Bob’s, and Jim is.. i don’t know, a moderately famous author, and Bob writes unpublished poetry. So Bob constantly and discreetly tries to move the neighbourly picket-fence banter in a more high-brow direction, in the hope that he’ll get to impress Jim with his taste, wit and intelligence, and perhaps get his poems critiqued or something. Maybe he employs some sort of trick or technique he picked up from Dale Carneigie’s “Winning friends and..” book (I haven’t read it) , or something like that.
Now, the exaple as modified has the advantage over your “plasma TV/ stamp collection” version of being the sort of thing that actually happens in real life.
While I wouldn’t want to be the kind of miserable sycophant that Bill is in this example, I can’t really see that he is doing something very morally objectionable or “objectifying” either.
The study was really a measure of testosterone because masculine and feminine facial features are a result of levels of testosterone. Women and men studied faces and perceived the more feminine faces as more attractive for women in the long-term because men with higher levels of testosterone get in more bar fights, are more unhealthy, financially unstable or whatever. If short-term relationships are the goal for men, that’s a traditional masculinity problem that should be worked out by men.
Mythago
Why should he “fix” himself? He might be a perfectly decent and interesting guy looking for love, or companionship. Is there anything wrong with that? Maybe his problem is just being shy. I don’t think you can fix that.
Suppose the buttons that “pick up artists” push really do work at creating an initial attraction or connection. Is it much different that women putting on makeup, sexy outfits, and perfume to out clubbing? Men also want to be noticed and attractive. That initial attraction could allow him the opportunity to get to know someone he never would have had the opportunity to meet due to his shyness with approaching attractive women, and the social barriers that the 17 previous “Nice Guys” guys faced when they approached her.
Here are 2 more examples that distinguish guys who are nice from Nice Guys (TM). 1) Guys who are nice actually listen to what women — even feminists — are saying. They don’t insist on blatantly ignoring the much talked about definitions of terms being used and adamently refuse to use those definitions. They don’t continue to use their own very different definitions of terms and use that to pound their fists (metaphorically or literally) on the table and loudly proclaim that the women are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Here’s a hint: There’s a reason that people are talking about
or
and not
or
or even
And if you still don’t understand what I’m talking about here, you need to actually read what the feminists here have been saying throughout this thread — actually read it, and listen to what they are saying. Don’t just shut down and continue to assume you know what they are saying and then get all bent out of shape about it.
2) Guys who are genuinely nice want to meet people, and possibly befriend people, because they are want to be around people who are fun and interesting to them. The purpose isn’t “I want to find my soulmate” — don’t get me wrong, I think that thought could be in the background, and I certainly don’t think it should be ruled out of the question, but that’s not the purpose of meeting new people and making new friends, even of the opposite sex. In fact, that guy will still befriend women (and men) they are not sexually attracted to, simply because, again, that person is interesting and fun to be around. Maybe that friendship will lead to a sexual attraction/romantic feelings, maybe that person is your soulmate. Maybe not. Maybe you’ll never have romantic feelings for that person. Yet, you still find them to be a good friend. In fact, the guy who is genuinely nice will continue to meet people and make friends in the exact same way, even after they have found their soulmate. Because, again, the purpose is to meet people and make friends, not find a way to get the girl and/or get laid.
On the other hand, a guy who is genuinely nice will also meet women to whom is clearly attracted. The guy who is genuinely nice will be honest about those feelings. He will ask her on a date. He might get turned down, and that sucks. At that point he has to decide whether he can genuinely be her friend, with no hope of it turning romantic, or whether to move on. Pretending to be interested in a friendship in hopes of “convincing her” is going to do nothing but bring him pain, and annoy her.
Ummm…ok, but this seems to be more of his issue than anyone’s else. Certainly not feminists. If he actually has this problem, he can’t turn it around and blame it on women (particular women or women in general) or on feminists.
Well, maybe the reason strong, intelligent, independent women aren’t attracted to you is because you’re still too entrenched in gender stereotypes. Women know that men who strongly believe in gender stereotypes are more likely to be sexist.
Again, seems like this is all his problem. No one else’s. He’s got fucked up ideas about the way women think and, even more, the way that friendship works. He can either work on his own problems or not, but in the end, it’s all his problem. Pushing the blame on others just makes him look like that much more of an immature asshole.
But HE is the one with the problem. He has a choice of trying to work on his own issues and problems or blaming everyone else. But most intelligent people are going to see it for what it is. Now, I’m not saying that being attracted to someone who isn’t attracted to you in the same way doesn’t hurt. And if you don’t think that happens to girls and women at least as often as it happens to boys and men, you’re out of your flippin’ mind.
Now, I’m not saying that not being able to find a partner isn’t hard and painful, and certainly everyone wants to be loved and even wants passion. But, if you really want to find that and can’t seem to be able to do so, you need to a very long, hard, honest look at yourself. First, you need to evaluate the way you put yourself out there. Are you assertive or passive? Face it, most people (not just women) really don’t enjoy being around passive people. I know that passivity is about the hardest thing for me to deal with — from both men and women, friends and lovers. I don’t particularly enjoy being around aggressive people either, for the record. But whoever I’m around has to be able to stick up for themselves, and not allow themselves to be used as a mat for others to wipe their feet on. They’ll do things for their friends (and lovers) because helping people out makes them feel good, not because they either don’t have the guts to say no or because they’re hoping to make the other person feel in debt to them (especially when that debt is expected to be paid back with sexual and/or romantic favors — or even feelings).
You also need to evaluate the people that you are attracted to. Because, let’s face it (and be honest about it), there are people who might be “out of your league,” not to mention the people out there who are just assholes. This goes not just for men but for women, too. Yeah, there are actually women who only go after the “bad boy.” There are a number of reasons for this — maybe they grew up with an abusive father and that’s what they learned (not to mention the whole, “I need to fix him thing, and all the other things that go into these sorts of relationships). Neither a guy who is genuinely nice nor a Nice Guy (TM) will ever have a chance with a woman like this. Just as she’s not actually ever going to change that abusive asshole “bad boy,” a Nice Guy (TM) (or even a guy who is genuinely nice) will never change her. (She might change, but no one will change her — just as an abuser might change if he works hard enough, but a woman will never successfully change him.)
Those women are not the majority of women (just as abusive men are not the majority of men). Hell, I’d even bet that if many of these Nice Guys (TM) out there actually looked around, they’d find that there are women who are feeling the same way about them that they feel about these women. In other words, while John is pining after Susie and watching her only date “bad boys,” Joanie is pining after John, wondering why he’s only attracted to the Susie’s of the world who don’t want him. Then John “realizes” that if ever wants to get Susie, he’ll have to become a “bad boy” — but that doesn’t really work for him either, so he just becomes another raving MRA buying mail order brides they can manipulate and dominate. Meanwhile, Joanie “realizes” that the only way she’s going to get a man is to treat him like shit so that he’ll chase after her. And on and on the circle goes.
That’s great that have some understanding of what the woman sees. Now, if you could just realize that it’s not nearly as inaccurate as you seem to think (and that would require you being honest with yourself, and realizing that you are treating women like a piece of pussy and not as humans and friends), you might actually get somewhere.
Larry, somebody who describes themselves as not having very good social skills isn’t merely ‘shy’.
Schala: I appreciate your story, but with all due respect, I don’t see what it has to do with Nice Guys who bitch about how mean women are for not being into them. If that’s not your story, and it doesn’t appear to have been, I wasn’t criticising you.
If you’re trying to convince us that you’re not as bad as we’re painting you, you might want to try laying off the repulsive, piggish language.
I’m sure this comment has already received the derision it deserves, but I’d still like to register my disgust with it. But of course it’s the perfect out: “It’s not that she’s just not into sex with me…it’s that sex just isn’t as important to her.” Right. Dream on.
And this, of course, NEVER happens to women…..only to Nice Guys.
Oh, PLEASE. That’s the last straw: there is no way I can take you seriously after that laughable comment. Once again, the Nice Guy comes up with a “fact” that he pulled straight out of his arse and uses it as an excuse for his and other Nice Guys’ unacceptable behaviour. I’ll ask you the question that we always aske the Nice Guys when they start this rant: how come you don’t just ignore all the masochistic bitches who are “clawing at each other” to get at the Bad Boys and try your luck with one of those shy, quiet Nice Girls who have no interest in anyone dangerous?
Just like a lot of those Nice Girls who can’t get the attention they crave. Again, I ask, why don’t you take a chance with one of them rather than eternally chasing after the type of woman who is never going to want you? You don’t want love, affection, sex, etc., you want to use women to enhance your social status with other men. That’s why your definition of “women” only encompasses Hot Babes All The Guys I Know Want To Fuck.
I repeat, you are not entitled to have pussy. Ever. Get that through your heads, LB, Larry, et al. If you can’t get laid, all I can say is it sucks to be you. Because you’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.
Pardon me Mr moderator if some fury trails out. I give what I thought was a thoughtful and rather heartfelt analysis explaining the legitimate concerns of the nice guy, and get what I think is of undue negativity. As far as I’m concerned the responses to my post consist of making horrific assumptions about me out of thin air, accusing Nice Guys of not doing the very things that they were doing, and calling the kettle black. I cant go into everything in one post so I’ll have to do this peice by peice.
First off before I discuss one point I need to bring up something that ties into it. When I first caught wise to the whole “Nice Guys Finish Last” reality part of me felt understandable anger that women “only give it up for the creeps” but I realised taht women cant help but be attracted to who they’re attracted to, just like me, and surely my atractions are shallow, but i cant just change them. So although I’m understandably bitter and disgusted with how women choose their mates, I understand it as something I have to learn to accept and deal with and not look at women as “bad” just because they are attracted to certain things. I can get upset about the Nice Guy syndrome and I do have a problem with women on other accounts regarding this, but i do not have the audacity to demand somehow women change what they are attracted to.
But you brought it up…..
“But, if you really want to find that and can’t seem to be able to do so, you need to a very long, hard, honest look at yourself…You also need to evaluate the people that you are attracted to.”
“how come you don’t just ignore all the masochistic bitches who are “clawing at each other” to get at the Bad Boys and try your luck with one of those shy, quiet Nice Girls who have no interest in anyone dangerous?…..Again, I ask, why don’t you take a chance with one of them rather than eternally chasing after the type of woman who is never going to want you?”
Ok….so let me get this straight
A woman is talking about romance and how she wants a man that will treat her right and how much she hates cocky assholes and what have you. A nice but shy and geeky man tries court her by talking to her like a human being, being nice and sweet to her,getting to know her and establishing a bond establishing a bond, and although she finds him to be a wonderful person and values their relationship, she spurns him for an alpha male jerk who treats her like crap, and she’s always complaining about it…..so SHE should’nt take a hard look at herself, really take an honest ponder on who she finds attractive , and try to give someone she would not consider initially attractive a chance rather than eternally chasing after those who will make her miserable in the long run? That resonsibility falls entirely on the man? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I’m just saying if you are going to give that sort of advice to someone why shouldnt it better suit those women who date badboys and keep nice guys as friends, who are constantly screwing up their love lives while rewarding bad behaviours and punishing good? It is more suited to them especially since many of them COME OFF as “shy,quiet Nice Girls who have no interest in anyone dangerous”
And heres where I’ll make a second point. Nice guys DO go after “those shy, quiet Nice Girls who have no interest in anyone dangerous”. I repeat, the very thing you say they dont do, along with other things, is what THEY DO. Only to have them snatched out from under them by the very men they CLAIMED not to have interest in. Justifiably or not, that’s the whole reason they’re upset!
More later (i hope)
as per the recent research i posted about women seeking feminine men as long-term partners, you have to take age into account.
women in their twenties may seek out the “dangerous ” men but women are really not interested as these men as long term mates.
men in their twenties may seek out the “hot” women but if that behavior continues past the time they want to settle down, that’s men’s problem. hollywood images are deceptive too. george clooney may be in his 50s and still seek out the “hot” blondes but this is a distortion of reality. most men just want a normal, nice girl.
maybe you’re targetting women who are too young to settle down.
Bollocks. Complete and total bullshit. It’s just not true–it’s a lame excuse dreamed up by men who can’t bother being GENUINE nice guys by treating women as individual, fully-fledged humans. Genuine nice guys DO NOT finish last. Get that through your head.
In your bullshit fantasy. Not reality. SOME women, due to self-esteem issues, do get into abusive relationships. But this is far from ALL women. You are simply choosing to believe that this is the norm because you can’t get laid. And it couldn’t POSSIBLY have anything to do with you, and your complete inability to see us as human. No, it’s GOT to be because women are all masochistic. Right? Not because you come across as a slimy, self-involved, misogynistic creep.
Again, this is YOUR FANTASY. Not reality. Are you really trying to say that every single heterosexual couple out there is made of an asshole abusive man and a masochistic wimp of a woman? Even the most tragic of Nice Guys has to know that that’s ridiculous.
Got a clue for you, Cupcake: whining about how mean, selfish bitches won’t make with the pussy you deserve is NOT good behaviour. Following women around in creepy, stalky ways is NOT good behaviour. Pretending that you’re a friend to a woman and that she actually matters to you on a human level when all you really want is to get between her legs is NOT good behaviour.
Okay, be honest, you are actually taking the piss with the above, aren’t you? No one could come out with something that obviously made up and say it with a straight face. You mean to tell me that the timid little mouse of a woman who no one has ever looked at twice is ALWAYS getting swept off her feet at the last moment by some leather-clad Bad Boy????? Even you couldn’t possibly believe a tale that preposterous.
LB, if you ever want your life to change, I suggest you repeat the following, doing ten repetitions at least five time daily: “I AM NOT ENTITLED TO PUSSY. EVER.”
Only once you have accepted that as the truth will anything between you and women get better.
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.