“Nice guys”, profeminism, personal transformation — a longer post

136 thoughts on ““Nice guys”, profeminism, personal transformation — a longer post”

1. “Nice guys” are almost by definition anti-feminist, since they refuse to see women as they are and instead have some impossible ideal.

   Plus, they’re suffocating.

2. From my understanding, being “pro-feminist” and being a “nice guy” are not even close to the same thing. It’s a little misleading at times, because the term means anything but nice, and the distinction isn’t always clearly made.

   The impression I get from typhonblue’s post on SYG is that it’s post hoc justification; there’s an obvious logical leap from liking women to thinking women can do no wrong, or from thinking that men should be accountable to disliking men, and I haven’t found too much evidence that you assert the latter propositions.

   In my experience, the “nice guys” typhonblue complains about are more likely to be found among the “men’s rights advocates” than “pro-feminist” men, because the complaint of “I’m a nice guy but no woman wants me” tends to presuppose a level of entitlement that the latter set is typically uncomfortable with.

3. So, she has a problem with men who see women only as sex objects, who group all women together and won’t grant them individuality, and get angry with women who won’t bend to their will, and this is the fault of feminists?

   What next? Did feminists invent FGM?

4. …women can be angry, violent, bitter, lustful, and cruel.

   (Singing: Four of these things belong together
   Four of these things are kind of the same
   Can you guess which one of these doesn’t belong here?
   Now it’s time to play our game.)

   I assume you meant some suitably qualified kind of “bad” or badly-expressed lustfulness there, Hugo, and I know we have somewhat differing views of human sexuality, but still! It’s an odd thing to put in a list of women’s flaws.

5. Yami, you’re right, I did mean it in the negative sense of “objectifying lust” that robs the desired person of their full humannness. Again, this is my theology informing my feminism.

6. Hugo’s post is right on point. Three comments:

   1) All individuals regardless of gender would do well to ask themselves tough questions about their own behavior when they find themselves in conflict with others. Self-examination is not the province of pro-feminist men alone. (But I agree that women are often socialized to second guess themselves TOO much.)

   2) You are dead right about women being harder on other women. In my days as an assistant district attorney, for example, my colleagues and I found women much less likely to convict in male-on-female rape and domestic violence cases (and much harder on female victims.) Typhonblue is another case in point with her ludicrous statement that all women are either “catty” and vicious or clingy and suffocating.

   3) If I recall my history well enough, women’s supposed moral superiority was often used as an excuse to keep women out of public life, i.e. “Women will sully their moral purity if they are allowed to vote, or participate in politics, or do much of anything.”

7. I must be some kind of uber-nice guy, since I actually make an effort to be nice both men and women. Does that mean I demean and dehumanize everyone?

   Sheesh. Every time I make the mistake of following one of these links to Stand Your Ground, I get this odd sense of relief that I don’t have to deal with people like this in my day to day life. Sort of the same feeling I get when I see a trailer for the next Rob Schneider comedy, and reflect on the fact that I’ll almost certainly never have to watch that movie.

8. “Pro-feminist men are gay”.

   I’m confused. I thought gay men don’t like women.

9. “That means that when we see the women in our lives “behaving badly”, we first examine our own behavior. “How”, we ask ourselves, “have my actions contributed to this situation?”

   LOL

   I thought to be a mature adult one didn’t go around blaming others for their own behavior–that even when others clearly are the seed of a problem, the mature individual was above condescending behavior.

   “As long as we see women, individually or collectively, as the source of our unhappiness, we aren’t yet in the process of being transformed.”

   And if you transpose women for men–wow. Authentic pro-feminism, your use of gobbledygook is what keeps me reading. By the way, in “clearing the air” can you really expect persons to take you seriously talking about feminism? After being raised by a feminist (mentioned with all due respect), hearing all your endearing stories of getting along better with women, all your college education in gender studies, the critical thinking skills of having obtained a PhD., and you still succumbed to male predatory—what chance does the common man have. I hope it is painfully obvious to you why numbers 1 and 4 seems fitting for you. Don’t miss understand me, you seem like a good guy and good guys make mistakes too.

10. That’s generous of you, joe.

11. Joe suggests substituting the word “men” for the word “women” in one of Hugo’s sentences so that it reads, “As long as we see men, individually or collectively, as the source of our unhappiness, we aren’t yet in the process of being transformed.” He then comments, “Wow.”

    I am not sure what his point is but I suspect that he is implying that feminism is about women blaming men for their unhappiness. That is far from the case because feminism is about political, social, and cultural equality for women.

    If Joe is referring to individual women who blame men for their unhappiness, clearly individual women have just as much as an obligation as men to take responsibility for their own actions. There is nothing particularly mind boggling about that.

12. “in “clearing the air” can you really expect persons to take you seriously talking about feminism”

    Thanks Joe for voicing my opinion. With all due respect Hugo, I certainly read your site more for entertainment now (post clearing the air) than before. I love a good argument, and there is plenty of it to be had here. (although the responses from several individuals are terribly predictable.)

13. Actually, Emmy, it’s not with “all due respect” that you write that, because obviously, the disclosure of my past has affected your “respect” for what appears here.

    At the risk of being immodest (yet again), history and Scripture make it abundantly clear that those who fall woefully short and repent may have as much if not more to offer than those who never fell at all.

14. Heartlessbitches.com has a great definition of “nice guy” which touches on some of the points typhonblue made, but stresses the passive-aggressiveness, failure to take responsibility for one’s own actions and stop blaming everyone else (women, men, jerks, women who like jerks, men who like bitchy women) for your problems. And they’re quite clear that women can fall into this behavior as well, they just don’t call themselves “nice guys.”

    I must be some kind of uber-nice guy, since I actually make an effort to be nice both men and women. Does that mean I demean and dehumanize everyone?

    No, it makes you a good person, which is what I like to call the people who actually embody what self-described “nice guys” only think they embody.

15. “Scripture make it abundantly clear that those who fall woefully short and repent may have as much if not more to offer than those who never fell at all.”

    That sort of argument only “works” on those who believe in the same Scriptures you do.

    If it makes one who fell “feel better” to quote the scriptures and repent their sins, then fine. But doing so rarely makes the victim feel any better. Sure anyone can make mistakes. But I do not really respect someone who goes around touting that they are a “reformed sinner” (and therefore should be admired because they have “been there”).

16. Emmy, I’m not asking for admiration. I’m asking not to have my opinions dismissed; there’s a difference.

    I’m not going to comment further on this.

17. Why yes, Emmy. People who own up to the wrongs they’ve done in the past and work to rectify them are not worthy of respect. Apparently, only people who pretend they’ve never done one hurtful thing, and don’t work to make amends, deserve respect.

    Gotcha.

    Hugo, from what I could get from typhonblu’s posts in SYG was that she’s pissy that you and Amp haven’t dropped everything for her.

    I like how hugo and ampersand ignore me almost completely. So much for being respectful of the opinions of women. I guess it’s only the women who march in lock step with their views. Perhaps they’re threatened by an woman who is an independant thinker? And why not? When you hold women to be helpless victims of men’s every twitch and grumble. After all, if they *weren’t* how could you play the white knight, swooping in to save them by “not being like all the other men.”

    I’m sorry, I’m not going to play a fragile princess to Hugo and Ampersand’s desire to be corageous saviors, defeating the horible dragon of masculinity.

    It’s odd, since you haven’t posted to SYG (Good lord, why discuss things with the obviously irrational? I’ve never seen so many adhoms in one place)–you’re supposed to come running to her? And Amp did engage with her. I don’t get what her beef is.

    Her post mirrors the opinion of a troll on Amp’s board who flung the same accusation at him–that he wanted to save women and thus patronize us. :::Rolls eyes:::

18. “I’m asking not to have my opinions dismissed; there’s a difference”

    Hugo, whoever said that your opinions were being “dismissed”???

19. “Apparently, only people who pretend they’ve never done one hurtful thing, and don’t work to make amends, deserve respect.”

    Stop misquoting me please. What is it with you people? Don’t you read carefully?

20. In a nutshell, this is why nice guys suck: A Nice Guy would treat me the same if I were fixing his car or booting him in the face.

    This is a classic example of the post-feminist social collapse of our society. Hugo, I praise you for posting this tidbit.

    Notice how the female that wrote it expects some ‘harm’ upon her by a male who she ‘boots in the face’? So the nice guy who is physically and mentally abused by the modern American secular hedonist female and does not respond to that violence then becomes ‘boring’, a real drag and a guy who basically ‘sucks’. The nice guy is socially punished because he does not ‘strike back’ when aroused with violence by the modern female. No women want to date him. The nice guy’s social circles are eliminated because he is not a ‘beater’ of women.

    There is no ‘excitement’ for a female to punch a male punching bag and then the male doesn’t punch back. That is contrary to what females are conditioned to think in modern America. The female that wrote that tidbit expects to be beaten when she enters her anti-male rage. When the male does not beat her in return for her beating of the male target, the male is thusly labeled a ‘nice guy’ who treats her the same after receiving her beating as he treats her while ‘changing the oil’ in her car.

    I think that men recognize that there is a difference between changing oil for a female’s vehicle than not beating her in return for the beating she is giving the male.

    The modern American secular hedonist female doesn’t like ‘nice guys’ because nice guys are not ‘exciting’ to them. The modern American secular hedonist female instead wants a ‘bad boy’ that she can ‘fix’ in her own limited vision and hope on the periphery that when she does get violent with the male that the ‘bad boy’ returns the violence to the Nth degree. How shocking it must be for the modern American secular hedonist female to get violent with a male and have that male not get violent with the female in return. There is nothing for the female to fix in that relationship, no pushing the relationship envelope into the arena of unacceptable behavior.

    Most American women date ‘bad boys’ because of their delusional desire to be abused. Nice guys are rejected because they are less likely to be the abusers. A bad boy that is dating fifteen different women is more appealing to the female because Hollywood has trained her that that form of abuse is cool and she loves it. A bad boy that shows up after three days away from home in an unshowered drunken rage to beat her is more attractive to the female because it is exciting. A bad boy who has a vast criminal record and always toes the line between good and evil is more appealing to the female because that is what she views American males should be like, and her feminism training instructs her to fix those males.

    The nice guys don’t need such fixing. They are law-abiding, hold down steady jobs, are loyal to their families and aren’t playing fifteen women at once, are narcotic free, own their own homes or businesses and fully enjoy the American dream.

    The modern American secular hedonist female detests that because that she wants men to beat her evenly or moreso than she applies her beatings to the man that forms a relationship with her. She wants a co-dependency of abuse in her life that lets her prove that the feminists were right, while always thinking in the back of her mind that her destiny of family and the white picket fence was a lie never meant to be available to her.

    That pathology applies to a majority of young females today.

    Thanks Hugo for sharing that.

    Obtestor

21. Hugo, thanks for confirming my suspicions. I thought it would be something along those lines.

    Lots of people still have Victorian-style suspicions of female lust, even when it’s a positive and non-objectifying part of a healthy relationship. And plenty of Christians can be a little, um, overenthusiastic about Paul’s asexuality at times. So it’s imprecise to use “lustful” when you mean “objectifying”. Your regular readers can basically guess your intent, but are we your sole intended audience?

    Your theology and your feminism interact in ways that us secular feminists (and presumably non-feminist Christians) don’t always expect. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy your blog, but I wonder if it’s not also a reason to strive for clarity when you write about things like lust.

22. I didn’t realize so many men were quivering like jello molds in the face of Woman.

23. Emmy,

    I think you were dismissing Hugo’s opinions. You said Joe voiced your own opinion when he said, “Can you really expect persons to take you seriously talking about feminism?” That sounds pretty dismissive to me.

    In reading an opinion piece, I think it is helpful to know something about the background of the author, especially if the background information provides insight into how the author’s life experiences may have shaped his opinions. No one can accuse Mr. Schwyzer of anything less than full disclosure and that is why his blog is such a pleasure to read. It certainly does not make me take his opinions any less seriously just because he may have acted contrary to his current opinions and values during an earlier time of his life.

24. Stop misquoting me please. What is it with you people? Don’t you read carefully?

    Yes, but you don’t apparently. Your original comment about Hugo’s clearing the air post was derisive; you said only read him for entertainment value after that post. You further proved my point in your subsequent comment when you implied he’s a fake and a fraud. (But he would have been just fine if he’d never said word one about it.)

    I don’t believe in God or the Bible either, but I can accept that Hugo owns his mistakes and is working to make amends. You don’t buy it, fine, but then I’m mystified as to why you post here. To prove to everyone just how righteous you are? You’re doing the opposite.

25. Joe, most feminists strenously avoid blaming “men” for our problems. That’s why the word “patriarchy” is such a nice one, since the problem is in the system of male dominance, supported by both men and women. The system is the problem and we are all, men and women both, a part of the system.

    But anti-feminists don’t like that word “patriarchy” one bit, do they?

26. Notice how the female that wrote it expects some ‘harm’ upon her by a male who she ‘boots in the face’?

    No. There’s no “expectation of harm”; there’s merely an expectation of *some* response other than passive acceptance (like removing one’s self from the situation, communicating one’s displeasure, etc.).

    So the nice guy who is physically and mentally abused by the modern American secular hedonist female and does not respond to that violence then becomes ‘boring’, a real drag and a guy who basically ‘sucks’. The nice guy is socially punished because he does not ‘strike back’ when aroused with violence by the modern female. No women want to date him. The nice guy’s social circles are eliminated because he is not a ‘beater’ of women.

    Again, no. The nice guy is “socially punished” (note how the “nice guy” phrases this in terms of punishment/reward – it’s all about how they behave toward him, and he’s entitled to favorable treatment simply by virtue of his “niceness”) because he shows no interest in the female as a human being rather than an object of validation.

27. I didn’t realize so many men were quivering like jello molds in the face of Woman.

    Men don’t quiver when faced with threats of violence. Men can return the violence, or they can walk away from it. If men choose not to walk away from the violence initiated by women, men go to jail for it, while the women remain free to prey upon other unsuspecting men. That is the function of the domestic violence racket.

    Obtestor

28. Yami, you’re right that I ought to be more specific. There’s all the difference in the world between the lustful hunger that two people in a loving relationship can feel for each other and staring longingly at the body of your “neighbor’s wife” or “husband.”

29. I know we’re not going to see eye to eye on when expressions of sexuality are acceptable, but I don’t think it’s quite fair to paint the only alternatives as sexuality in a “loving relationship” and adultery.

30. Again, no. The nice guy is “socially punished” (note how the “nice guy” phrases this in terms of punishment/reward – it’s all about how they behave toward him, and he’s entitled to favorable treatment simply by virtue of his “niceness”) because he shows no interest in the female as a human being rather than an object of validation.

    So the ‘validation’ exists only when there is reciprocity of violence within a relationship? You have got to be kidding.

    Nice guys value females much more than bad boys do. Nice guys do not want to be harmed by their mates, either through physical, mental or other forms of violence.

    To say that men are not punished through the elimination of social circles because they do not return a certain level of ‘abuse’ to their abusive female partner is clearly a liberal brain disorder.

    If I am a male seeking to establish a relationship with a female, there should be no, I repeat no, expectation by me of harm from the female. But the female ‘philosophs’ of the modern feminist movement say that men should beat their partners when their female partner beats them because the female should ‘expect’ that socialization from men. Any man who does not toe that line then is a ‘nice guy’, an oddity within the feminist pathology.

    You know, a normal, sane family guy.

    Obtestor

31. Uh, at the risk of steering this discussion off course, I want to respond to Obtestor’s reference to the “domestic violence racket.”

    Women certainly do commit acts of violence against their domestic partners. And guess what? They are prosecuted, just as men are! In such a case, the prosecution may have to work hard to convince a jury to get past certain gender stereotypes (i.e. that women are never violent) just as they have to work hard to get past gender stereotypes when the victim is a woman. But there is no “domestic violence racket.”

32. True, Jeff.

    Let me try this amendment:

    Lust falls “short of the mark” when it is sufficiently powerful to blind us to the reality of the total person for whom we are lusting. It is also problematic when it causes us to forget our responsibilities and our commitments, whatever they may be.

33. “you implied he’s a fake and a fraud.”

    That’s your interpretation of what I said… not actually what I said.

    “I’m mystified as to why you post here”

    Didn’t you read carefully…. I said I like a good argument. Duh.

34. All women are goddesses to the Nice Guy, worthy of worshipful adoration, which means no woman is a human being.

    Absolute nonsense.

    Obtestor

35. You must live in a far more violent world than I do, Obtestor.

36. Emmy, I read what you wrote. You should try it sometime. Here’s what you said:

    If it makes one who fell “feel better” to quote the scriptures and repent their sins, then fine. But doing so rarely makes the victim feel any better. Sure anyone can make mistakes. But I do not really respect someone who goes around touting that they are a “reformed sinner” (and therefore should be admired because they have “been there”).

    So, he’s a fake and a fraud, since he’s “touting that [he's] a reformed sinner” (as opposed to actually being one). If you believed he was truly reformed, you wouldn’t be making these snide comments.

    Oh, and for someone who says she only reads this blog for the entertainment value (thanks to Hugo’s honesty), I find your insistence that you’re not dismissing Hugo’s opinions rather rich. Given your posts to Hugo, it seems to me you like to pick fights, not have a “good argument.”

37. But there is no “domestic violence racket.”

    CMC, the author that Hugo linked has made the premise that since ‘nice guys’ can’t figure out that women have ‘different personality traits’ (translation: some women love administering violence and want their violent acts returned in kind by their partners), then there is something wrong with nice guys.

    My brain feels like it is listening to someone running their fingernails across a logic chalkboard when I read nonsense like that.

    Why don’t women just admit that many of them love to be abused? All the female author of that premise had to do was say that and I would have been in total agreement. Hell, I might have even mailed her a Christmas Card next year thanking her for her honesty.

    What she does instead, however, is take the feminist approach and asks why a man can treat her indecisively when she ‘kicks the man in the face with a boot’. That is the classic feminist pathology which propagates the domestic violence racket.

    You claim no such racket exists? Well if that were true, then why did Massachusetts pass a law to prevent disclosure of domestic violence statistics?

    It is because they did not want political opponents who know it is a racket to get access to those stats so they can prevent scientific research from being conducted using the stats. If you were trying to cure cancer, would you pass a law preventing access to laboratory research?

    The feminists in the DV industry have done exactly that.

    Obtestor

38. You must live in a far more violent world than I do, Obtestor.

    He lives in his own world, that’s for sure.

39. You must live in a far more violent world than I do, Obtestor.

    I wouldn’t be able to prove, as a scientist, any potential truth of your claim (or lack thereof). Since domestic violence statistics are now hidden from public disclosure by draconian undemocratic legislative activity, there is no way for an honest man to prove nor disprove your claim.

    Obtestor

40. Which might mean that arguing over domsstic violence statistics need not be the direction in which this thread goes.

41. Which might mean that arguing over domsstic violence statistics need not be the direction in which this thread goes.

    The point is that they cant be argued because of police state activity preventing their release. As a scholar Hugo you must recognize the inherent dangers involved with non-disclosure of who is arrested and for what reason within the nation-state.

    Even though I don’t agree with many of your political positions Hugo, I would be the first in line to question where and what happened to you in the event a police state institution prevented disclosure of your disposition. I would do that because I believe in human rights and the rule of law. Feminists have shielded disclosure of DV information and that is a dangerous slippery slope. That will be my last comment on DV in this thread.

    Obtestor

42. I’ve several comments to make here.

    “4. Pro-feminist men are filled with self-loathing.”

    Not all pro-feminist men — just those who behave in a misandric way (and some of these aren’t pro-feminist, either). The men who are filled with self-loathing are the ones who blame men for every social ill in the world, make light of abused men, or profit from ridiculing their own gender while bending over backwards to portray women in a positive light. Are SOME of these men trying to curry favor with women to make themselves more enticing? Probably. All? No.

    “But I can say that pro-feminist men are committed to taking responsibility for how their individual and collective actions impact others. That means that when we see the women in our lives “behaving badly”, we first examine our own behavior. “How”, we ask ourselves, “have my actions contributed to this situation?” That does not mean we absolve the women in our lives of all responsibility! But pro-feminist men recognize that we cannot ask others to hold themselves accountable until we ourselves have done the same. Where men’s rights advocates blame feminism, or an unjust court system, or individual women, pro-feminist men turn that critical gaze inward.”

    See: you just contradicted yourself and are engaging in a double standard. You suggest that when women behave badly men must see what they have done wrong to cause it. But men are not to blame women in general or even particular women for men’s problems. In other words, women’s problems are the fault of men, and MEN’S problems are the fault of men, too. Sheesh.

    “They do so NOT as an act of self-loathing, but as an adult and mature act of taking responsibility for two things: 1. their own individual behavior as men; 2. their often unwitting participation in a larger system that despite the shrill rhetoric of the MRAs, continues to benefit men more than women.”

    Remember my broad-brush comment from earlier. If you want respect for feminism, stop referring to what we men’s rights activists say as “shrill rhetoric.” Of course, you’re still repeating the line that men benefit more from “the system” than women do, so I don’t foresee this happening any time soon.

43. “And plenty of Christians can be a little, um, overenthusiastic about Paul’s asexuality at times.”

    Not that there’s anything wrong with asexuality, mind you…

44. So the ‘validation’ exists only when there is reciprocity of violence within a relationship? You have got to be kidding.

    Obtestor: I don’t know what you’re responding to, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I’m saying.

    By “object of validation,” I mean that the “nice guy” looks at these women primarily as a way to reinforce his own sense of worth, and one woman is as good as any other (except insofar as ones who are in more “demand” are seen as )-they’re not valued as individual human beings, but as tokens of status.

    His attitude is couched in the language of entitlement (he “deserves” the attention; to withhold it is to “punish” him; etc.). The “nice guy” believes that being “nice” (usually defined as the absence of any obvious character flaws, such flaws usually cherry-picked) makes him deserving of attention from women, and if women don’t give him attention then there’s something wrong with them. It’s a very one-sided view of relationships.

    It has *nothing* to do with violence. You’re steering it there so that you can step up on your prefabricated soapbox.

45. “So, he’s a fake and a fraud, since he’s “touting that [he's] a reformed sinner” (as opposed to actually being one). If you believed he was truly reformed, you wouldn’t be making these snide comments. ”

    If you read my original comments CAREFULLY, I never mentioned anyone in particular. It is your ASSUMPTION that I was referencing Hugo. And also, upon re-reading my original comments, it was not I who “picked the fight”. It was Hugo. I was simply agreeing with another posted comment.

46. “Nice guy” is a useless insult.

    I’ve been accused of being too nice of a guy. When I was younger and more defensive I bet they meant “nice guy” rather than good person. (BTW thanks for the clarification, zuzu.)

    “Nice guy” doesn’t motivate one to change behaviour or learn better social skills. I never put women up on a pedestal (I have 5 sisters, so I know better!) but I did need to work on my social skills
    1. I had to learn to flirt and recognize flirting behaviour. I failed miserably a number of times. It did not come naturally, though I could otherwise converse just fine.
    2. Overcome shyness and try to be more outgoing. I am not one to initiate conversation with people I don’t know. I have to make an effort and psyche myself up for it.
    3. Dispel my resentment that women were the gatekeepers to sex and none were letting me in. Some would have because I am a good, resonably hygenic, person, but I couldn’t recognize for 1 & 2.

    I think a number of “Nice Guys” have good intentions, but bad executions. For these men, perhaps instead of passive-aggresive insults, be real or be helpful. Noone ever gave me practical, helpful, advise. After many years I figured most of this stuff out myself. I don’t blame anyone for my shortcomings FWIW.

47. If you read my original comments CAREFULLY, I never mentioned anyone in particular. It is your ASSUMPTION that I was referencing Hugo. And also, upon re-reading my original comments, it was not I who “picked the fight”. It was Hugo. I was simply agreeing with another posted comment.

    Oh, holy hair-splitting, Batman! Your post that I quoted was in response to Hugo’s reply to you, so don’t even go there.

    And don’t give me this childish “he started it” crap. You’re the one who made the snide reference to Hugo’s clearing the air post, and you’re the one who said that because of that, you only came here “for entertainment value.” But no, you weren’t picking a fight with that comment, or your next snotty comment. Happy passive agressive day.

48. Jeff said: In my experience, the “nice guys” typhonblue complains about are more likely to be found among the “men’s rights advocates” than “pro-feminist” men, because the complaint of “I’m a nice guy but no woman wants me” tends to presuppose a level of entitlement that the latter set is typically uncomfortable with.

    Yep. Me too.

49. Right. Well, I might as well wade in here and clarify a few things.

    I didn’t write my rant about Nice Guys in referance to any particular group of men. Except, perhaps, those men who lable themselves “nice guys”.

    I posted a *link* to my rant, not my rant. Roy did that. I posted the *link* because I thought it might, possibly, be relevant to what I was saying about Hugo and others.

    And I was refering to when I posted here, as well as Amp’s posts on SYG. I got the feeling I was being avoided by them *because* I was female. Sexism sucks, dontcha know.

    Finally, nothing I’ve “done” to hugo compares to the shoot-ups I’ve had with MRAs. Specifically Angry Harry.

    Need proof?

    Political Correctness in the Men’s Movement

50. It has *nothing* to do with violence. You’re steering it there so that you can step up on your prefabricated soapbox.

    I could never use a soapbox because your movement has an absolute monopoly over them.

    The topic has everything to do with violence. Class is now in session. Look precisely at what the author wrote about her preconceived notions of ‘nice guys’. You have also bought into her dogma, not that that isn’t surpising.

    By “object of validation,” I mean that the “nice guy” looks at these women primarily as a way to reinforce his own sense of worth, and one woman is as good as any other (except insofar as ones who are in more “demand” are seen as )-they’re not valued as individual human beings, but as tokens of status.

    That is laughable nonsense. Do you actually believe that? Do you believe ‘nice guys’ are so narcissistic that they behave that way? A nice guy is a nice guy precisely because they are nice.

    Nice: 1. Pleasant. Kind. Good. Refined. Precise. Accurate.

    I spelled it all out for you above. If you think that a ‘nice guy’ is some irredeemable narcissist that only finds ‘self-worth’ in the full array of his interpersonal relationships with all women that he encounters, you should scrap your education and start over.

    The absolute fallacy of the argument being made is that ‘nice guys’ cannot distinguish between the potential individual personalities that females can bring with them into relationships. That is the most fallacious thing I have read in the past month, and believe me, I do a lot of reading.

    There is a sociopathological undercurrent in the American female social circle that creates deep rifts of suspicion within the female herself when they encounter men that are ‘nice guys’. This is derived from a certain degree of the female’s own self-loathing and lack of self-respect. I have covered these issues before. The female that has no self-respect, all too common in the modern American secular hedonist female, simply cannot comprehend how men can be nice to her, since her socialization at college or through the various forms of media which she is exposed to teaches her that no such creature is supposed to exist.

    Look at what you said again so that you can see what I am talking about:

    and one woman is as good as any other (except insofar as ones who are in more “demand” are seen as )-they’re not valued as individual human beings

    Do you not see the logic fallacy in your premise? A ‘nice guy’ is just as likely to mate with a female of his choice as a ‘bad guy’ is, the difference being that the longevity of the relationship itself determines who is the nice guy and who is the bad guy. The nice guy values the female with echelons more nurturing than the bad guy could ever do, or would be willing to ever do even if the bad guy could formulate such nurturing in his mind.

    If the nice guy did not value the female, he would beat her or return her acts of violence upon him. Your definition would also require the nice guy to view all women as objects of validity, meaning that acts of kindness from the nice guy are not really acts to benefit the female, but are simply tools to expand the male’s appreciation for himself. That is insane and the core of the logic fallacy being presented.

    You cannot claim logically that a man who nurtures a female and is a nice guy is somehow exhibiting behaviors that are narcissistic. Any overt act of kindness and with it the sharing of resources is not a suspicious behavior.

    You are trying to make it appear that it is.

    Obtestor

51. Sheelzebub,

    Do you always feel the need to defend someone else?

    And what’s wrong with reading this site for “entertainment”? Helps to brighten my day at work. I love to get up the nose of people such as yourself. Helps to sharpen my reasoning skills.

    Oh, and here is something else to chew on.(For all those pro-feminist/ pro-lifers and gay rights activists….)

    If only your mother had had an abortion, or your daddy had been gay… YOU wouldn’t be here for me to argue with!

52. I have always had an instinctive suspicion of men who complain about the fact that “women don’t want to date a nice guy like me,” but earlier I could not articulate why I felt that way. I think that Jeff hit the nail on the head with his observation that such comments “presuppose a level of entitlement . . . ” — a level of entitlement that women like me find off-putting.

53. sorry… oops… I meant pro-feminist/pro-CHOICE.
    MY MISTAKE.

54. Finally, nothing I’ve “done” to hugo compares to the shoot-ups I’ve had with MRAs.

    I am an MRA. One of the best. Bring it on, hon.

    Obtestor

55. emmy: my father is gay and my mother had an abortion. I’m still here.

56. Emmy, you mean there are other pro-feminist/pro-life men who support gay rights out there? Where?

    Typhonblue, thanks for coming by. I don’t post at Stand Your Ground because it isn’t a civil environment. I honor Amp’s decision to do so, but I am not going to join in on that.

    Most of your commenting here was done while I was in England, and unable to respond. I’d welcome your participation here — yours is a most unusual perspective.

57. Sarah, thanks for that!

58. Do you always feel the need to defend someone else?

    She is always welcome with open arms to defend the legions of victimized men at the hands of radical feminism whenever she feels inclined to. We are not discriminatory.

    Obtestor

59. Something that needs to be set out for this discussion to make any sense would be a definition of “nice guy.” There’s a reason that it’s in quotes. It’s because these men call themselves nice, in fact their motto is “nice guys always finish last.” And in fact they do, because “nice guys” suck.

    Good men love women, good men are kind, good men are caring and loving and sharing and communicative. Good men would never contemplate abusing their partners, good men are in fact a lot like good women. Good men also have spines and opinions of their own – they have convictions and passions and hobbies and personalities.

    “Nice guys” on the other hand, at least the ones who self-identify as such are passive-aggressive assholes. They don’t see women as real people – just objects to worship and adore. They lack a sense of self, they lack responsibility, they lack passion and interest. They are not people that anyone wants to hang out with. Which explains rather handily why they don’t get dates.

    Most women don’t want to date either “nice guys” or jerks, they want good men.

60. Obtestor says: “‘Finally, nothing I’ve “done” to hugo compares to the shoot-ups I’ve had with MRAs.’

    I am an MRA. One of the best. Bring it on, hon.

    Obtestor”

    Sorry, sweetcheeks. I always give my opponents a fighting chance. In your case, the opportunity to actually read the essay I wrote.

    The Neverending Whine

61. “emmy: my father is gay and my mother had an abortion. I’m still here.”

    But, your potential brother or sister is NOT.

    And was your father “gay” when you were conceived? I think there would be another word for your father then.

62. I have always had an instinctive suspicion of men who complain about the fact that “women don’t want to date a nice guy like me,” but earlier I could not articulate why I felt that way.

    I have always had an instinctive suspicion of women who remain in abusive relationships. Those women are so damaged from the longevity of the abuse suffered that a ‘nice guy’ couldn’t realistically establish a normal and happy relationship with such a female.

    Many women find ideological stability in abusive relationships with bad boys. That does not reflect negatively in any way upon the status of nice guys, no matter how badly the damaged female wants it to.

    Obtestor

63. There’s a reason that it’s in quotes. It’s because these men call themselves nice, in fact their motto is “nice guys always finish last.” And in fact they do, because “nice guys” suck.

    Nice guys finish first. I am a nice guy. I have many women who would love to marry me.

    The ‘nice guys finish last’ attitude among men are simply men that have social inadequacies which result from societal pressures that prevent them from forming healthy social circles with women. Women are also responsible for that because women could recognize who those men are and embrace them with love and nurturing. There are large clusters of women in America who now equate basic interpersonal relationships with resources. Before these women realise that the Porche isn’t going to show up in the driveway to greet them like Hollywood says it is, they become undesireable themselves to men later. So the guys that do finish last have plenty of company from the opposite gender.

    But make no mistake, nice guys, honest, nice guys, find no shortage of women.

    Obtestor

64. Sorry, sweetcheeks. I always give my opponents a fighting chance. In your case, the opportunity to actually read the essay I wrote.

    Yes, and it deserves the Guiness Book of World Records award for the most logic fallacies ever compiled into a written paper.

    Obtestor

65. “Yes, and it deserves the Guiness Book of World Records award for the most logic fallacies ever compiled into a written paper.

    Obtestor”

    No debate?

    Aw, shucks.

66. No debate?

    I love debating. Look at the amount of time I spent writing about one paragraph of your paper already. Where would you like to begin?

    Obtestor

67. Not with that peice.

    The whole topic is done and overwith for me.

68. Typhonblue, I do have one question that has really been bugging me. You know the feeling when you read something and wish that you had access to the writer who wrote it so you could ask them a question about it? Well, since you have made yourself available to this forum, I have a question.

    When you explained that a nice guy ‘sucked’ because when you stuck a boot in his face his response was no different than when he changed the oil in your car, were you basically saying that you expected a certain level of ‘boot’ action back in your face from him? Since the man didn’t put his steel-toe boots down on your neck after you stuck your boot in his face, that made him a ‘nice guy’?

    Obtestor

69. The whole topic is done and overwith for me.

    Look, I think the piece you made was great. Seriously. It helps the men’s rights movement. Thanks for writing it.

    Obtestor

70. Most women don’t want to date either “nice guys” or jerks, they want good men.

    Women don’t know what they want. That is why they fall into the feminism trap.

    Obtestor

71. Obstetor, I’m not going to ban you, but I’m going to suggest to you what I suggested to NYMOM — take a break. When you’re commenting seven times an hour, fifteen times a day, it gets to be a bit much. Just a friendly request.

72. Obstetor, I’m not going to ban you, but I’m going to suggest to you what I suggested to NYMOM — take a break.

    Actually that is rather unfriendly. I am multi-tasking between this forum and some work. But look, no problem Hugo. Let me say this before I go. Not one, not one question I have ever presented was ever answered by any of you honestly and the clear majority of questions I have raised were ignored because of the truths they raised.

    You also always intervened to demand unpopular feminist topics important to men not be discussed. This is a forum to talk about the issues, right?

    So much for the diversity of ideas and a return to groupthink.

    Take Care. I will start a blog of my own and send you the link so you can check it out.

    Obtestor

73. I will welcome your periodic comments and news of your blog, Obstetor. May I recommend Typepad rather than Blogger. Actually, I can recommend anything other than Blogger or Livejournal.

74. “Actually that is rather unfriendly”

    I agree. Sad. I know I posted a lot today too.. but only because someone (who shall remain nameless) kept twisting my words. (And on two different strands no less.)

75. Obestor says (in quotes):

    “When you explained that a nice guy ‘sucked’ because when you stuck a boot in his face his response was no different than when he changed the oil in your car, were you basically saying that you expected a certain level of ‘boot’ action back in your face from him? Since the man didn’t put his steel-toe boots down on your neck after you stuck your boot in his face, that made him a ‘nice guy’?”

    It was hyperbole. I never have, nor would I ever, kick someone in the face. The description was black humor, an attempt to illustrate one extreme of a spectrum of behavior.

    However, if I were to kick someone in the face, I would expect the same in return. That’s why, if I ever *were* to kick someone in the face, I would make damn sure they weren’t going to get up and take revenge.

76. Folks, it’s not unfriendly to ask that your blog comments not be hijacked by one or two folks who want to dominate a certain thread. My suggestion is that folks limit themselves to ten comments a day on my blog — does that seem controlling, or reasonable?

77. It’s interesting that you mention typhonblue, I was just lurking there the other day and thinking she’s going to be the next Amber Pawlik soon or Wendy McElroy…

    …women getting the ‘boot’ when they start getting too much attention…

78. “What next? Did feminists invent FGM?”

    Well why not…Feminists are responsible for everything since Augustus through OJ Simpson, so why not them too.

79. Yami:

    “lustful”

    That was good…

80. “Joe suggests substituting the word “men” for the word “women” in one of Hugo’s sentences so that it reads, “As long as we see men, individually or collectively, as the source of our unhappiness, we aren’t yet in the process of being transformed.” He then comments, “Wow.”

    But women have a RIGHT to be angry at men…there is such a thing as ‘righteous anger’…why shouldn’t we be angry at them…

    It’s like they are trying to deny ANY responsibility for their own bad actions either now or in our past…I wouldn’t say they are responible for EVERY thing bad that has happened to women, nor would I say they are not responsible for ANY thing bad that has happened to us…

    It there a middle ground here where they can accept SOME responsibility…

    I mean I feel like a black person here arguing with a white one who keeps denying anything bad ever happened to me…and I’m getting angrier and angrier about it…

81. “At the risk of being immodest (yet again), history and Scripture make it abundantly clear that those who fall woefully short and repent may have as much if not more to offer than those who never fell at all.”

    Every single human being has ‘fallen’ especially those guys at “Stand Your Ground”…it’s just that they’ve been too darn sneaky to get caught at it yet…

82. “I’m sorry, I’m not going to play a fragile princess to Hugo and Ampersand’s desire to be corageous saviors, defeating the horible dragon of masculinity.

    It’s odd, since you haven’t posted to SYG (Good lord, why discuss things with the obviously irrational? I’ve never seen so many adhoms in one place)–you’re supposed to come running to her? And Amp did engage with her. I don’t get what her beef is.

    Her post mirrors the opinion of a troll on Amp’s board who flung the same accusation at him–that he wanted to save women and thus patronize us. :::Rolls eyes:::”

    She’s used to being paid a lot of attention to since she’s one of the few female posters on that board…they always pay a lot of attention to women just before they ‘gut’ them….errr I mean ban them from their board…

83. NYMOM sayz (in quotes):

    “I mean I feel like a black person here arguing with a white one who keeps denying anything bad ever happened to me…and I’m getting angrier and angrier about it…”

    Funny, I’m sure they feel the same about you.

84. My there’s a lot of anger around here. Obtester must have had a very BAAAAaaaad relationship at some point to hate women that much. Emmy seems self righteous, typhonblue seems combatively angry. Ii feel like Rodney King, can’t we just manage to get along here and stop stereotyping “men” and “women” so negatively?

    Our host seems to be working hard to make men and women accessible to each other. Others seem to be coming around to say how EEEEeeevil the other gender is. We need to remember that foolish behavior is not limited by gender, and the ill behavior of individuals is not representative of a whole sex. I’m sure we all see ourselves as very reasonable. Can we listen as well?

85. NYMOM says (in quotes):

    “It’s interesting that you mention typhonblue, I was just lurking there the other day and thinking she’s going to be the next Amber Pawlik soon or Wendy McElroy…”

    Goodness.

    Anyway… I’m rather suspicious of people who legitimize their anger by saying the victims of their anger “deserve” it, as opposed to recognizing it as a personal failing.

    But aside from that, can you take the typhon-challenge, NYMOM?

    Can you name one way women are disenfrancised by western society that meets the following criteria:

    1) It has to be systemic (affecting *more* then one person. Statistics good, anacdotes bad.)
    2) It has to be legal. Or, when illegal, not socially acceptable.
    3) It has to be socially acceptable.
    4) It has to have *no* government funded agencies adressing it.
    5) It can’t be something that affects men *more.*
    6) It can’t involve one group of women’s opinions about another group of women.

86. Hugo, You seem to be pretty popular for being such a nice guy with a pretty complicated view of life. If you could sign or dance you’d almost be marketable, right?

87. Umm, I’ll accept the Typhonblue challenge. I won’t accept her last point as I’m not certain I understand it. I still think this applies though.

    For the US: No women are allowed in front line combat qualified positions in the Armed Forces. Ergo, they are held back from advancing in the military. This also affects affirmative action as they are always Less ‘qualified’ for ALL federal jobs as preference is given to Vets.

    TB might whine and claim this is not true for ALL western societies, but very little is. Her suppositions are generally worthless and subject to her (or anyone’s) ignorance of ‘all society of all history’ type of canards. It’s not a real argument if you’ve tried to constrain any real debate to the type of nonsense and drivel all too typical of such sophomoric exchanges. TB must specialize in such specious ‘arguments’.

88. Women can’t serve in *some* combat roles, in *some* western countries.

    Alright, fair enough. So, if that one thing was changed, woman would no longer be oppressed in the United States? Further since women serve in combat roles in Canada and Austrialia, those women aren’t oppressed at all right?

89. “My suggestion is that folks limit themselves to ten comments a day on my blog”

    Well… fair enough Hugo… but I guess I might as well confess now…

    I am a student of psychology who has been “testing” the crowd on your site as to how they react to conservative comments made by both men and women. You see… Ambrose, AJ, Darcy, Emmy, and one other who shall be nameless… are all ME.

    It has been very interesting to see the different “reactions” my cast of fictious characters have received.

    The men, AJ and Ambrose, met with very hostile reactions from your female readers. I could feel the hate coming at them just because what they said was perceived to have come from a man.

    Darcy received a bit more sympathy, at least from the men… but the women didn’t like her much either. It was like women thought that Darcy was betraying their sex in some way. Like “how dare” a woman stick up for a man. I found that very sad.

    Emmy was just plain hated. Poor Emmy. She was even called “Self-Righteous”.

    I am proud to say that all of my characters received quite a bit of attention from you Hugo. You personally responded to each and every one of us. But I am pretty sure that had we agreed with you… you might have ignored us. See, nothing seems to get you more upset than someone who questions your positions.

    My parting comment to all the readers would be this… try to actually listen to one another more often. Most of the very adament pro-feminists on this site don’t really hear what the perceived opposition is saying. I think more often than not, the line that divides is a lot thinner than you think.

    Thanks for all of your time. This has been a worthwhile experience for me.

    We shall take our leave,
    Ciao,
    Ambrose, AJ, Darcy and Emmy

90. Confessor, I’m not sure your conclusions, specifically regarding Hugo’s projected response to your characters if they had been agreeing with him rather than disagreeing with him, are valid. My conclusion comes from 2 points: 1) that he generally responds and continues dialogue with many of the regular posters who agree with him (ampersand, amanda, etc.) and 2) that in any kind of dialogue or debate, those that disagree with you are those that should generally be adressed… if everyone agrees with me, what kind of response are they likely to get other than “thanks, folks, you rock too!”? If, however, some people disagree with you, shouldn’t the debate focus on those people? If someone challenges my statements, shouldn’t I respond and back up my statements and try to sway this person to my point of view?

    As for reader and commenter reactions to your characters, are those reactions unjustified? AJ and Ambrose could be very snarky and archetypically representive of the MRA movement. Their comments had a tendency to, to paraphrase you, not really respond to what the perceived opposition is saying. Perhaps Darcy was better received because she was more likely to actually respond to what the commenters were saying, and to admit mistakes when she made them. And frankly, Emmy could justifiably be described as self-righteous.

    Good luck with your paper or study… I trust that this is for a paper or study, either for classwork, or perhaps a peer-reviewed journal, rather than just to annoy those with a different viewpoint than you or laud your superiority over those that you fooled so cleverly. Because we all know what psychology would say about your motivations then.

91. Thanks for trolling ‘Confessor’. You’ve been wasting your time if you truly believe we either a.) believe your cover story or b.) care enough to respect you in the morning for what ever research you might claim accrues from such posts.

    And TyphonBlue, like other slick but bankrupt debating tactics, changing the terms of the debate in mid stream is pretty silly and specious too. No where have I claimed that American women are ‘oppressed’. That was not your question you posted here. But I did respond to your challenge, even given your half dozen(!) terms and conditions. I think you must be deluded to thinking of yourself as somehow related to W.V.O. Quine, right?

    BTW: I also posted on your response to KH’s post on this ‘Nice guy’ thread over at Brutal Woman.

92. I don’t know who W.V.O Quine is.

    And if you didn’t claim American women are oppressed, then I don’t see why you’re arguing with me that they are oppressed.

    You’re not the first one to post the “American women aren’t allowed in combat” thing. I debated weither being treated *as* disposable really was a privilage then, but now I just decided to go with it and take it to it’s logical conclusion.

    But, really, it’s nice to know why *my* experience of being a woman is so different then the other posters on this blog. Obviously, being Canadian, I’m not oppressed, but you guys, being mostly American, *are*.

    BTW, the half-dozen terms and conditions are all self-explanatory if you give it some thought.

93. TB, If you don’t know who Quine is why not google him? And no, disenfranchised is not exactly the same as ‘oppressed’. One has a quite proper legal definition, the other does not, it’s a bit more broad and nebulous.

    I don’t know about you, but the Canadian Forces are NOT in Iraq now because they are precisely NOT ‘disposable’ and the Liberal government both prior to this and now NEVER thought of these lives in such a trivial fashion.

    And yes, we all like to imagine our own experience as unique, but again logic seems to elude you. Easily I might add.

94. So the Canadian Government has unilaterally decided to exclude *all* of its soldiers from combat roles in Iraq because they’re not “disposable”? I guess Canadian soldiers are more oppressed then American.

95. This post will be rather long because this a complex issue.

    Hugo, I think there may be good reasons that feminists or pro-feminist men are often accused of turning men into spineless “soft males.” I prefer Bly’s term “soft male” to “nice guy,” because it is clear. Maybe nice guys don’t always finish last, but soft males do (because they are too submissive and not confident with themselves). As someone who used to call himself a “nice guy” religiously, I mostly agree with the analysis at heartless-bitches.com, but it is still too simplistic.

    The archetypes of the “nice guy” / “Sensitive New Age Guy” emerged as a response to pressure by feminism for men to be less dominant and more in touch with their feelings. Furthermore, feminism made society more aware of social power dynamics between men and women. The concept of the “male chauvinist pig” was born, which seems to have descended into the concept of the “jerk.” Also, the concept of males being “patronizing” towards women was born and seen in a negative light.

    Unfortunately, somehow the concept of the “nice guy” seemed to get combined with chivalrous or paternalistic attitudes, and also with some form of romantic idealism (like the belief that you should seek “the one” person to “fall in love” with). This leads to the belief that you should “respect women” because they are women. Unfortunately, you cannot truly respect someone else more than you respect yourself. Guys who try to respect women more than they respect themselves will come off as insecure or insincere. Unfortunately, feminism doesn’t have a very good track record for helping guys learn self-respect and self-esteem.

    The net effect of these message is that “nice guy” epitomizes everything a guy is supposed to be and everything women are supposed to want. A “nice guy” is supposed to be (a) in touch with his feelings, (b) respectful of women, (c) careful to not patronize women, (d) romantic, and (e) careful not to “hit on” women or see women as “sex objects” (and there are arguably a few more). These messages are well-intentioned in and of themselves, but as a guide to masculinity, they fail for at least three reasons:

    1. These messages are very nebulous and ill-defined. What, exactly, constitutes being “nice” to someone, “patronizing” someone, or “hitting on” someone? Furthermore, even if these concepts weren’t so subjective, these messages don’t explain how far you should go in accomplishing them. A “nice guy” exposed to the messages I listed may think, “ok, so if women want nice guys, then if I am more nice, more emotionally expressive, more respectful of women, more careful not to patronize women or hit on them, and more romantic, then women will want me more, right?” Wrong! Let’s look at these one by one:

    It’s possible to be too nice to someone, or nice in a way that they find smothering. More emotional expressiveness isn’t always a good thing, depending on the emotions you are expressing and how you are expressing them, you may come off as confrontational on one hand, or clingy and insecure on the other hand. As for respect, truly being more respectful is always good, but if you don’t respect yourself, the respect you show to others will fall flat and look like kissing up. Trying to avoid patronizing someone is always good, but obsessing over it will lead you to walk on eggshells, especially since “patronization” is so subjective (and Hugo, you do this sometimes when you obsess about not exploiting your “male privilege”). Trying not to “hit on” women is a difficult concept, since it is difficult to distinguish from flirtation, and different women like different degrees of flirtation. As for being romantic, looking for more than sex in a relationship is laudable, but a lot of the current romantic scripts have problems with them (and many women might find them cloying or smothering).

    2. The second problem is that these messages, while correct, don’t really tell you how to be a man. They identify a few pitfalls to avoid, but they are totally useless as a way to gain confidence, self-esteem, or self-agency. If guys were given similar instructions on how to drive, it would be something like this: “Don’t speed, stop at red lights, don’t hit pedestrians, and be very very careful.” Unfortunately, that kind of advice (even though it is correct!) isn’t actually going to teach someone how to drive, it is just going to make them paranoid (because they know what not to do, but they don’t know what they should do instead).

    3. These message do not teach guys how to attract women sexually. Notice: respecting women, being nice to them, etc… describes how to connect and empathize with women platonically, but it doesn’t describe how to attract them sexually. Looks are not the only component of sexual attraction. Flirtation, confidence, sense of humor, charisma, and relaxation may be examples of what might attract some women sexually. Unfortunately, some guys might suppress those qualities when they go to extremes not to “hit on” women. Furthermore, those qualities require that you are comfortable with yourself (and guys who try to flirt or interact with women when they aren’t comfortable with themselves may come off as weird). Perhaps this is why “nice guys” are often seen as “just friends.”

    If someone takes these messages as the essence of being a man, they will get themselves into trouble. Trying hard to embody these messages too far can lead them to backfire. Then those guys may assume that women don’t appreciate respect, like to be patronized, and go around stomping on men who show feelings. I suspect you will find that view of women chillingly familiar, because some (but definitely not all) MRAs ascribe to it, although it is hardly limited to MRAs. Or the guy might think that if women just see him as a friend when he is romantic, he needs to “play the game” instead. In fact, I think that a lot of these attitudes emerge when the “nice guy messages” (if we can refer to such a thing) backfire. Of course, there are some women who are not looking looking for healthy relationships with men, especially younger women (and young men do this also). These women will not reward guys who, despite male socialization, manage to demonstrate emotional maturity , because they are not mature themselves. Some women might also be attracted to males that demonstrate assertive, or even dominant behavior.

    For an example (but of course not a proof) of my points, check out this article from my university paper: http://stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=15629&repository=0001_article . If you want to chalk this up to the patriarchy training women to “sexualize” power differentials between men and women, then fine, but you can’t change the fact that there is a subset of women like this (we just don’t know how big that subset is). The author considers herself a feminist, but admits that she is attracted to dominant, powerful men even though she isn’t “supposed” to be. What gives? Is she immature, insane, or brainwashed (or can we come up with a less patronizing explanation)? It’s actually my pet theory that wanting a slightly dominant or submissive sexual partner isn’t evidence of something wrong with you, it may simply be a component of your sexuality like sexual orientation (and it is NOT always true that men always want to be sexually dominant and women submissive, the reverse can happen also).

    I agree that there are problems with the current construction of masculinity; nevertheless, these problems cannot be viewed independently of context. There are also problems with the current construction of femininity that reinforce the problems with masculinity. The problems with masculinity compound the problems with femininity which compound the problems with masculinity ad infinitum. It is a self-perpetuating death spiral that is compounded by the immaturity of youth. When people try to blame one gender alone for this situation, it’s like little kids screeching “he started it!!”, “no, she started it!!”

    If you view masculinity as a dialectic, the Sensitive New Age Guy is the antithesis to the Male Chauvinist Pig, but synthesis hasn’t happened yet for various reasons some of which I have already described. So what’s happening? Now the antithesis to the Sensitive New Age Guy is developing in the Frat Boy and the Bad Boy. Both pro-feminist men and MRAs may think they have synthesized a balanced type of masculinity, but they are wrong. The pro-feminist view of masculinity is still only an antithesis, and it mostly defines masculinity in terms of what men shouldn’t be. (btw, I’m reading Kimmel’s “Manhood in America” right now… if it changes my mind, I will update my position) Some MRAs, insisting that men should avoid being nice, chivalrous, or accommodating towards women are doing exactly the same thing: they are defining masculinity as only the antithesis to something else.

    I argue that all these antithesis definitions of masculinity will fail, because they just flip back and forth on various dichotomies such as nice / not nice, empathetic / stoic, dominant / submissive, sexually proactive / chaste, and emotionally expressive / reserved when these should really be treated as continuums. See what I’m getting at?

    Are feminists or pro-feminist men responsible for the plight of the “nice guy”? Yes and no. Chivalry is probably a big player also. On the one hand, most feminist probably didn’t intend (I hope) for so many men to become spineless, clingy, submissive or passive-aggressive due to its efforts to reconstruct masculinity. On the other hand, feminism was a major factor of in the existence of a cultural context that gives rise to these trends. Since feminists and pro-feminist men have had a stranglehold on discourse about gender, I think it’s a bit dishonest for them to turn a blind eye to the real-world consequences of that discourse, because feminism created many of the concepts that give rise the current construction of “nice guy.”

    Feminism may not have intended the current conception of the “nice guy,” but I hold feminism responsible at least indirectly because it has not done a good enough job of fighting that concept (heartless-bitches.com isn’t enough). I don’t here any major feminists going out and saying “Wait a sec, maybe all you nice guys shouldn’t try so hard to put women on pedestals… sorry we gave you the impression that you should.” And for some reason, I don’t envision this happening any time soon.

96. Umm, TB in case you’ve not been paying attention, let’s recap. The CF are IN Afghanistan, doing combat because the government thought it was a justifiable use of their forces. A fellow NATO member was attacked, and it had originated from planning done in Afghan countryside. They stayed on despite the fact that some of their sons were then subsequently killed in a very negligent ‘friendly fire’ incident early in the war while the CF’s were on a night time training mission.

    The US unilateral and unprovoked attack on Iraq was seen, as a matter of official policy to be a.) none of their business and b.) a silly, unnecessary Imperial foreign adventure that would come to no good. In this they’ve been proven right. They can *unilaterally* do this, cause like they run their own country still, K? They can direct their Armed Forces to where they desire to see the most benefit. Most of the time this is for peace keeping missions. Bummer, eh? That’s what oppression looks like from Canadians the world over. Get used to it, it’s a proud tradition.

    I’m guessing you don’t follow Canadian politics any either, right? Try RCINET.ca for a news feed, OK?

97. This response is going to be long too. I’ve tried to trim it so I’m not bogged down responding to every point; if there’s anywhere where a lack of response seems glaring, let me know and I’ll try to get to it later.

    Hugo, I think there may be good reasons that feminists or pro-feminist men are often accused of turning men into spineless “soft males.” I prefer Bly’s term “soft male” to “nice guy,” because it is clear.

    I’m not going to get into an argument over terminology, because I know what you mean, but that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not sure if it’s the connotations of masculinity being tied to body image (e.g., fat or non-muscular men are “soft”), or if it’s that the gender role prescibes personality traits (being caring, accomodating, good, etc. are not masculine).

    Unfortunately, somehow the concept of the “nice guy” seemed to get combined with chivalrous or paternalistic attitudes, and also with some form of romantic idealism (like the belief that you should seek “the one” person to “fall in love” with). This leads to the belief that you should “respect women” because they are women. Unfortunately, you cannot truly respect someone else more than you respect yourself. Guys who try to respect women more than they respect themselves will come off as insecure or insincere. Unfortunately, feminism doesn’t have a very good track record for helping guys learn self-respect and self-esteem.

    I tend to agree with this, but You say “feminism” like it’s a monolithic ideal, which I think is fallacious. What happened is that society, over the last few decades, has come to decide (and rightly so, I believe) that certain forms of heterosexual behavior are unwanted – but we as a society haven’t decided what should replace it.

    The net effect of these message is that “nice guy” epitomizes everything a guy is supposed to be and everything women are supposed to want. A “nice guy” is supposed to be (a) in touch with his feelings, (b) respectful of women, (c) careful to not patronize women, (d) romantic, and (e) careful not to “hit on” women or see women as “sex objects” (and there are arguably a few more).

    Again, I mostly agree with this; I think the problem for “nice guys” is that they focus on (c) through (e) to the exclusion of (a) and (b) – they’re trying to use a new model of heterosexual relationships to achieve the “old” results and wondering why being “nice” isn’t getting them laid.

    The second problem is that these messages, while correct, don’t really tell you how to be a man. They identify a few pitfalls to avoid, but they are totally useless as a way to gain confidence, self-esteem, or self-agency. If guys were given similar instructions on how to drive, it would be something like this: “Don’t speed, stop at red lights, don’t hit pedestrians, and be very very careful.” Unfortunately, that kind of advice (even though it is correct!) isn’t actually going to teach someone how to drive, it is just going to make them paranoid (because they know what not to do, but they don’t know what they should do instead).

    I wonder here what you consider “how to be a man.” I have a big problem with behavior being classified as masculine or non-masculine; as a man, isn’t anything I do “being a man” by definition? I’ll assume this is just another terminology issue, and the real issue is there’s little indication of what has replaced the outmoded forms of heterosexual interaction for males.

    These message do not teach guys how to attract women sexually. Notice: respecting women, being nice to them, etc… describes how to connect and empathize with women platonically, but it doesn’t describe how to attract them sexually.

    Should this be the point? I mean, I suppose one can argue that any prescribed role that reduces heterosexual men’s sexual attractiveness toward women will not be readily adopted, but I stand by the point that most people who complain that being “nice” isn’t getting them laid aren’t really “nice” people. (I see a difference between the typical “nice guys finish last, chicks dig jerks” rant and, say, someone lamenting that eroding someone’s self-esteem can be an effective seduction method.)

    If someone takes these messages as the essence of being a man, they will get themselves into trouble.

    I would hold that this is true for *any* set of messages about masculinity.

    Of course, there are some women who are not looking looking for healthy relationships with men, especially younger women (and young men do this also). These women will not reward guys who, despite male socialization, manage to demonstrate emotional maturity , because they are not mature themselves. Some women might also be attracted to males that demonstrate assertive, or even dominant behavior.

    Again, I have a problem with the terminology, namely the idea that a heterosexual woman’s actions with respect to relationships is phrased in terms of “rewarding” or “punishing” a man for his behavior. This speaks to what I feel is one of the biggest problems in heterosexual relationships today: a sense that any given man is entitled to attention from the woman of his choice. (If a woman appreciates a romantic gesture from someone she’s not attracted to, is she obligated to “reward” the gesture? Is a man obligated to do the same?)

    Both pro-feminist men and MRAs may think they have synthesized a balanced type of masculinity, but they are wrong. The pro-feminist view of masculinity is still only an antithesis, and it mostly defines masculinity in terms of what men shouldn’t be.

    I can’t speak for other “pro-feminists” (I just use the term “feminist,” but I understand why Hugo doesn’t), but I don’t think that’s always the case. I think that pro-feminist male *groups* tend to focus on changing the role by dwelling on “shouldn’ts,” but I think that the other side of it is just overlooked, because the idea is to break out of this whole “what men should be” box. I’ll admit that the messages we get about heterosexual male sexuality are still pretty mixed, and in my mind there should be a bit more focus on the “positive” side that I believe had been taken for granted, but I don’t think that’s because it’s absent in the view of masculinity so much as it’s because

    (btw, I’m reading Kimmel’s “Manhood in America” right now… if it changes my mind, I will update my position) Some MRAs, insisting that men should avoid being nice, chivalrous, or accommodating towards women are doing exactly the same thing: they are defining masculinity as only the antithesis to something else.

    Yep. (How many “men’s rights” articles can you find that don’t phrase their issues as a response to feminism?)

    Are feminists or pro-feminist men responsible for the plight of the “nice guy”? Yes and no. Chivalry is probably a big player also. On the one hand, most feminist probably didn’t intend (I hope) for so many men to become spineless, clingy, submissive or passive-aggressive due to its efforts to reconstruct masculinity. On the other hand, feminism was a major factor of in the existence of a cultural context that gives rise to these trends. Since feminists and pro-feminist men have had a stranglehold on discourse about gender, I think it’s a bit dishonest for them to turn a blind eye to the real-world consequences of that discourse, because feminism created many of the concepts that give rise the current construction of “nice guy.”

    Here I disagree, for two main reasons. First, feminism is again being defined as a monolithic entity (I think doing this is just as bad as defining “patriarchy” as a monolithic entity); it’s not. Second, I believe that blaming feminism for this and asking them to be the ones to change the system is an abdication of one’s own ability to make these changes, and a return to the idea that men are entitled to attention from women. Just go out and be the man you want to be already; what’s stopping you?

98. I’m going to jump in briefly just to say that all binaries are problematic. To say that all men are nice guys or jerks, or that all women are bitches or doormats, likens us all to A and Z and forgets categories B-Y.

    We could also do ourselves a favor by looking up the etymological history of the word “nice.” There’s a reason why it’s used to describe certain people’s behaviors.

99. Aegis: Why exactly should feminists feel responsible for helping men improve their love lives? The fault lies not with feminism, but with the men who interpreted feminist rhetoric about the problems with traditional masculinity as “wow, if I just act exactly the opposite of that, I’ll get tons of chicks!” With all due respect, guys, that’s not our fault, and it’s kind of something you all need to work out on your own. (Personally, I think anyone who subscribes to the belief that there’s one way of behaving that will make him irresistible to any and all women deserves to have his bubble burst– women are individuals, and no two women are looking for exactly the same things in a partner or relationship. And if that disillusionment leads him down the path of misogyny, it’s unfortunate, but that’s his problem too; it’s hardly our fault as feminists.)

    I would agree that the current state of “masculinity” is unclear, and that the problematic old roles for men have not yet been replaced by clear and positive new roles. I think feminism, though it naturally skews toward a focus on women’s issues, does deal with this problem by continuing to break down male gender roles as well as female ones, so that all people are more free to be themselves. However, wouldn’t you think that men themselves ought to take an active role in this reconstruction of masculinity? Why are you sitting around waiting for feminists to tell men how they should and shouldn’t act, instead of trying to change things yourself? I’m not really sure how much women can do in terms of this issue, aside from those of us who are heterosexual choosing to date men who are truly respectful, honest, caring, etc. and choosing not to date these so-called “nice guys,” which we’re already doing (and being denigrated for in many cases).

    Basically, this is the type of “men’s rights activism” that makes me wish that term hadn’t been co-opted by the misogynists and social conservatives. I do think there’s room for gender study and activism that focuses on masculinity and men’s issues, and that it doesn’t necessarily fit comfortably under the umbrella of feminism (though I’d hope the two groups would naturally work together rather than seeing each other as enemies), but it’s hard for anyone to identify with that kind of group without associating with people who have a very different sort of agenda and do see feminists as the enemy. Still, I really do think that men should take more action in forming new positive definitions of masculinity– I don’t necessarily see eye to eye with Hugo on all issues, but I do think this is one area in which men could do well to take cues from his outlook and behavior.

    (By the way, since when have feminists had a “stranglehold on discourse about gender”? When the president of Harvard can get up on stage and basically say that women are innately worse at science and math, and face very few repercussions for it, I really have to laugh at allegations that feminists somehow rule the world and silence anyone who disagrees with them.)

100. “(By the way, since when have feminists had a “stranglehold on discourse about gender”? When the president of Harvard can get up on stage and basically say that women are innately worse at science and math, and face very few repercussions for it, I really have to laugh at allegations that feminists somehow rule the world and silence anyone who disagrees with them.)”

     Ironically, I’d say that this very statement is characteristic of why many people feel that feminism has a stranglehold on the discourse of gender (though I do hate overly dramatic terms like “stranglehold”).

     This is because he never said that women were innately worse at science and math. He suggested that in general when taken as populations, highly functioning talents at science and math tend to occur more often in men and results in different career choices.

     Second, he faced MANY reprocussions for that statement. He nearly fell all over himself apologizing for it and came close to losing his job.

101. Do you always feel the need to defend someone else?

     Actually, I read your replies to me purely for the entertainment value, and I post to get ever more amusement from your inane rantings and sloppy reasoning.

102. “For the US: No women are allowed in front line combat qualified positions in the Armed Forces. Ergo, they are held back from advancing in the military.”

     LOL!

     y’all are hilarious! … the only example you could find of male “privilege” in the supposed “patriarchy” was the “privilege” that males have to be forced into military servitude at age 18 and then to be maimed, tortured and/or killed while defending womens’ Homeland??

     women are “held back” from being the disposable cannon fodder like men?!! this is the Last Frontier of the Professionally Oppressed?!

     such a position, so massively out-o-touch with reality, is so incredibly hypocritical, naive, and selfish that it deserves no response — except, unfortunately, that this mentality is quite pervasive throughout our Western matriarchies … how long will it be before American women begin complaining that they aren’t getting their share of testicular cancer?

     … and, no doubt, receiving special funding and support in response to their “righteous” complaint?!

     LOL!!

     the nonsensical extremity of VJ’s position is par-for-course amongst many in our overprivileged, overprotected, hypnotised culture of spoiled brats, and illustrates clearly why YOU ALL BEST PRAY that feminism and the matriarchy is soon confronted and crushed

     a certain group of females, along with their male enablers, will not be satisfied until every shred of power and advantage has been ceded to them by their coercive State, and every male in the Western world is subjugated beneath their childish, unending demands

     and after they’ve destroyed every shred of trust and beauty between female and male, and civilization is smashed beneath the weight of their selfishness, megalomania and rage, they’ll sit in their freezing, blackened cities and COMPLAIN EVEN AS THEY SHIVER AND STARVE

     but there won’t be any media or universities or governments OR REAL MEN to rush in and save their sorry asses

     but hey, not to worry . . . when the Big Lights go out, VJ and comrades can call on their gender-studies professors to put out the fires!

     LOL!!

103. I think the POV “so massively out-o-touch with reality” is the one that dismisses an opposing view as tripe without reading them closely or acknowledging the nuances there simply because the argument is under a vague banner of feminism.

     Most feminisms do not promote an “overprivileged, overprotected, hypnotised culture of spoiled brats.” Most of us are wary of capitalism (yes, the one that creates free markets and directly markets to our kids thereby creating that overpriviliged, spoiled brat you detail), don’t buy into ad hominem attacks and labels, don’t want to see our detractors “shivering and starving,” and don’t want a linear model for femininity and masculinity like that endorsed by the original post under criticism.

     If you’re comfortable being characterized as either a jerk or a nice guy, I suppose you’re in good company, Ray, with the company you keep.

104. One more thing: Sometimes I get the feeling that some anti-feminists wouldn’t like women if feminism existed or not.

     Now where would I get that from?

105. Lauren: “One more thing: Sometimes I get the feeling that some anti-feminists wouldn’t like women if feminism existed or not.”

     You probably get this because many anti-feminists don’t like women. Naturally men (and some women) who don’t like women are naturals for the anti-feminist crowd. Just as many fringe feminists hate men, and would hate them whether or not feminism was around. Isn’t it a sad thing to be defined primarily by what one is AGAINST?

     Your dreaded MRAs are as varied in nature as feminists. There are many more flavors than the four that I have seen mentioned here. I wonder if the universe of posters on this blog will ever advance beyond deriding the monolithic MRAs while proclaiming the diversity of feminsts… I see no sign of it yet.

106. Well, stanton, I can distinguish folks like you and Aegis and craichead on the one hand from folks like Obstetor on the other. Your civility and willingness to comment here (in “inhospitable waters”) does not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

107. “But women have a RIGHT to be angry at men…there is such a thing as ‘righteous anger’…why shouldn’t we be angry at them…”

     SOME women have a right to be angry at SOME men, just as SOME men have a right to be angry at SOME women. Do you acknowledge this?

     “It’s like they are trying to deny ANY responsibility for their own bad actions either now or in our past…I wouldn’t say they are responible for EVERY thing bad that has happened to women, nor would I say they are not responsible for ANY thing bad that has happened to us…”

     Okay. So I’ll merely turn it around (again) and say that, while women aren’t responsible for EVERY bad thing that’s happened to men, I also wouldn’t say that women aren’t responsible for ANYthing bad that has happened to men…

108. I understand that Typhon doesn’t mean that men who treat women as true equals are actually jerks, but it might not be bad if she were to change that label to something else. I think her point is that men and women should treat each other the same, rather than with one-sided chivalry or the attitude of “yes-I-know-we-men-are-all-scum”…so when she calls that group The Jerks, it’s sort of a contradiction. I support men’s rights and I don’t think I’m really a jerk…

109. Not sure why it is that because some men have been screwed over by some women that women’s basic rights need to be dialed back.

110. Jeff and Keri, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I’m going try to respond to each of your main points, starting with Jeff (and if I leave out anything you want me to address, let me know).

     Am I looking at feminism as if it were monolithic? I don’t know. The statement: “feminism increased women’s political power” might also treat feminism as monolithic, but it doesn’t make the statement wrong. Are there any kinds of feminism that didn’t think male gender roles needed change, or that males needed to be less dominant and more empathetic? I think it’s perfectly fair to say that the “nice guy” emerged in response to feminism (though it’s another question how much feminism should be held responsible for this).

     “Being a man” – yes, this is a terminology issue that I probably should have defined better. I don’t know if I believe that males need to go through all sorts of shenanigans to learn to “be men.” Instead of talking about “being a man,” perhaps I should have talked about being an individual. Being an individual requires confidence, self-esteem, and a sense of agency and personal responsibility. I see those values lacking in both male and female socialization, especially in the “nice guy” messages.

     I stand by the point that most people who complain that being “nice” isn’t getting them laid aren’t really “nice” people. (I see a difference between the typical “nice guys finish last, chicks dig jerks” rant and, say, someone lamenting that eroding someone’s self-esteem can be an effective seduction method.)

     Actually, in my “nice guy” days, I think I was (and still am) an empathetic person. The reason I didn’t “get laid” was probably because I wasn’t comfortable with myself. I was insecure, inhibited, and passive. I think if I had actually made it into a relationship at that point, I would have made a total hash of things. I have no trouble admitting that because I am past it now. When I developed stronger self-esteem, confidence, and agency; and when I started being more proactive, I became a lot more successful with women. (Hence, I am also frustrated when I encounter MRA-types or just any men who deny that they need to change and blame women for being collectively insane for not wanting them.)

     It doesn’t surprise me at all that being nice doesn’t get anyone laid. Why should it? Being sexy is what gets people laid, not being nice. If we are charitable and define “niceness” as empathy, then it’s easy to see how empathy will create platonic connection, but platonic connection is NOT the same thing as sexual attraction.

     The idea that if a guy can get laid simply by creating emotional connection with a woman is just as deluded as the idea that a woman can find relationships simply by being hot and jumping in bed with a guy. These misconceptions over the nature of attraction hurt both sexes. My theory is that they come from some kind of essentialist, Victorian view of men and women. If men are just horny beasts, then it would justify the belief that attracting them sexually is all that’s necessarily for women to get into relationships with them. If women only feel a kind of pure, asexual love towards men, then that would justify the idea that all a guy needs to do is connect with her platonically (such as by being “nice”). These misconceptions create two problematic archetypes: the “nice guy”, and the “dumb (but hot) blonde”.

     I would hold that this is true for *any* set of messages about masculinity.

     Good point: couldn’t my skepticism towards current male socialization be applied to any messages guys receive? Perhaps all messages are potentially misleading, and my gripes with current messages are only based on the high degree to which they are misleading.

     Nevertheless, I think the problem with the current messages is not just that they can be misunderstood, but because they mostly define masculinity in terms of behaviors to avoid, or in terms of how other people should see you. Unfortunately, you cannot define individuality in terms of how others perceive you. Neither does it work very well to tell people what not to do, but not leave them any methods for finding what works for them. People aren’t so omniscient that we can expect them to see through all societal illusions. Surely it’s possible to come up with a better set of messages to socialize males.

     Again, I have a problem with the terminology, namely the idea that a heterosexual woman’s actions with respect to relationships is phrased in terms of “rewarding” or “punishing” a man for his behavior. This speaks to what I feel is one of the biggest problems in heterosexual relationships today: a sense that any given man is entitled to attention from the woman of his choice.

     Yes, it was misleading for me to speak of women “rewarding” men. I also see a big problem with the idea that sex is something that women should dole out in response to good male behavior. An analogous entitlement mentality is that idea that a woman deserves a relationship with a man if he has sex with her.

     Second, I believe that blaming feminism for this and asking them to be the ones to change the system is an abdication of one’s own ability to make these changes, and a return to the idea that men are entitled to attention from women. Just go out and be the man you want to be already; what’s stopping you?

     Keri made a similar point, and I will address it in my next post so that this one doesn’t get any more monstruous…

111. Amanda:”Not sure why it is that because some men have been screwed over by some women that women’s basic rights need to be dialed back.”

     I assume you consider this to be the implied intent of some men – to “roll back” women’s basic rights. If any man has declared this to be his intent, please post the source. I see references to things that men (MRAs?) say or do that I have not experienced. I still await a reference from mythago, for example, of someone saying that gender performance disparities in certain fields are due to genetic factors.

     Anyway – if you cannot quote a source, perhaps you can list the basic rights of women that you believe I, as an MRA, wish to roll back.

112. Jeff said:
     Second, I believe that blaming feminism for this and asking them to be the ones to change the system is an abdication of one’s own ability to make these changes, and a return to the idea that men are entitled to attention from women. Just go out and be the man you want to be already; what’s stopping you?

     Nothing: I am more or less the man I want to be, but I am not the issue. I have seen through the problems with a lot of these messages, but many guys have not and will not. Anyway, just because I have seen through these messages doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t protest them, especially since I have experienced first-hand the difficulty in changing. There are really two issues that we are dealing with:

     1. Whether certain social attitudes should exist.
     2. Whether it’s possible to surmount any disadvantages those attitudes create if you take responsibility for your life.

     For instance, it is possible to critique portrayals of female body images in the media and still expect women to be responsible for their self-esteem and happiness with their bodies.

     Why exactly should feminists feel responsible for helping men improve their love lives? The fault lies not with feminism, but with the men who interpreted feminist rhetoric about the problems with traditional masculinity as “wow, if I just act exactly the opposite of that, I’ll get tons of chicks!”

     I will suggest to you that perhaps men misinterpreted feminist rhetoric because there were problems with that rhetoric. And what did feminism do to stop men from making that misinterpretation? Nothing. But to be fair, maybe feminists didn’t realize that their tinkering with gender roles was going awry. Still, we can’t expect men to be omniscient either. If it is unfair to hold feminism responsible for some of the current problems with masculinity, then that is only because you can’t hold people responsible for ignorance.

     And if that disillusionment leads him down the path of misogyny, it’s unfortunate, but that’s his problem too; it’s hardly our fault as feminists.

     Yes, it is his problem. I’m not denying that. Still, feminism, or at least the feminism of the 70′s and 80′s had a major hand in creating those illusions in the first place.

     It may not be the fault of the media when girls become anorexic. But the media still contributes to a cultural context that encourages women to starve themselves. Likewise, feminism helped create a cultural context that encourages men to put women on pedestals. Maybe feminism cannot be held completely responsible for that context, but it cannot be held blameless either.

     I think feminism, though it naturally skews toward a focus on women’s issues, does deal with this problem by continuing to break down male gender roles as well as female ones, so that all people are more free to be themselves.

     Unfortunately, just as there are males who demonstrate negative attitudes to females who break their gender roles, there are females who sneer at males who break theirs. For an example of this, check out the article I linked to two posts ago. Right now, it isn’t necessarily practical for a guy to throw away his gender role, unless he is willing to severely limit his choices in women.

     However, wouldn’t you think that men themselves ought to take an active role in this reconstruction of masculinity? Why are you sitting around waiting for feminists to tell men how they should and shouldn’t act, instead of trying to change things yourself?

     What makes you think I’m not trying to change things? I happen to post a ton on other forums about masculinity. I’m not waiting around for feminists to do anything, and I don’t expect them to reconstruct masculinity. Still, I think feminism could have nipped the nice guy problem in the bud if it had been less short-sighted.

113. I agree with zuzu that “nice guys” are suffocating. I always thought that their primary focus was on themselves. They may put women up on fantasy pedestals, but the real focus is on them. They are insecure and want attention for themselves. They just use a different approach from the “jerks,” who are just as self-centered.

114. Obtestor: “Most American women date ‘bad boys’ because of their delusional desire to be abused. Nice guys are rejected because they are less likely to be the abusers.”

     Oh, this is ridiculous. “Most American women” don’t date ‘bad boys.” What a horrible view of women. ‘Nice guys’ are rejected because women see them for the self-centered and self-righteous guys they are. As Jeff said, ‘nice guys’ don’t see women as human beings. They see them as objects for their validation.

115. Aegis: Well, first of all, I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that feminism calls upon men to be “more empathetic.” I keep up with the feminist community fairly well, and I’ve never once seen a feminist say that one of the goals of the movement is to make all men get in touch with their feelings. I’ve seen men called upon to be more aware of their privilege, or to take an equal role in household chores and childcare, or to do more to fight rape and abuse, but none of those fall under “empathy” as a personality trait unless you really want to stretch the definition. (It may be true that feminists are more likely than non-feminists to seek out empathetic men as partners, because they may be less influenced by the gender roles that say men should be stoic and unemotional, but that still doesn’t mean it’s a goal of the movement as a whole.)

     I will suggest to you that perhaps men misinterpreted feminist rhetoric because there were problems with that rhetoric.

     What about it do you consider problematic? Again, the only thing feminists have consistently said about male gender roles is about the same as what they said about female gender roles– that a prescribed set of behaviors and attitudes and personality traits is harmful for anyone, and the idea that biological factors make men and women drastically different is harmful as well. Is that wrong?

     Unfortunately, just as there are males who demonstrate negative attitudes to females who break their gender roles, there are females who sneer at males who break theirs.

     Those women are generally not feminists. (By the way, I didn’t see a link in your second-to-last post– mind reposting it?)

     Still, I think feminism could have nipped the nice guy problem in the bud if it had been less short-sighted.

     I still don’t think it makes any sense to dump all or even most of the blame for the “nice guy problem” on feminism. Seems like quite the opposite to me– if a “nice guy” were really behaving the way feminists recommend that he should, he wouldn’t approach interactions with women from the perspective that he is entitled to their attention and affection simply by virtue of being male, and he would respect women as individuals who are capable of making their own decisions instead of insisting that they’re stupid/masochistic/don’t know their own minds/etc. because they’re not dating him.

     The idea that feminism is to blame for men disrespecting women and treating them like objects and trying to manipulate them into bed is pretty preposterous. Men didn’t need feminism to teach them how to do those things– they’ve been doing them for ages, since long before feminism became a household term (and yes, I know not all men behave this way, but throughout history there have always been some men who have). The “nice guy” thing is just an attempt to draw more flies with honey than vinegar– really, it’s the same old manipulation and misogyny dressed up in nicer clothes.

116. Pingback: Trish Wilson's Blog

117. Pingback: XX

118. Stanton: Angry Harry, for one, has left several comments in Hugo’s threads suggesting that the proper way of the world is one in which women’s rights are rolled back, and he has quite a bit of support on the MR boards.

119. Hugo, I know you are a Christian. Why are there pictures of you wearing a Kabbalah red string in your photo albums?

120. Heck, Lauren, Angry Harry has his own website.

     I especially liked his “most rape allegations are false” bit:

     http://www.angryharry.com/esMostRapeAllegationsAreFalse.htm

121. I assume you consider this to be the implied intent of some men – to “roll back” women’s basic rights.

     I don’t think “men” are trying to do anything. MRA’s, however, are not exactly pro-choice and of course are against efforts to protect female victims of domestic violence inside woman-only shelters.

122. Amanda said: “MRA’s, however, are not exactly pro-choice and of course are against efforts to protect female victims of domestic violence inside woman-only shelters.”

     MRA’s are not so monolithic as you imply here. You will find pro-choice and pro-life positions among us, as well as many others who agonize over what is right on this issue, just as anywhere else. If this is a definitive criteria, then MRAs cannot be convicted, as a whole, of trying to dial back women’s rights… but Hugo can!

     Perhaps there are some who wish to make all domestic violence shelters coed. I don’t claim expertise in this area. bmmg39 – is this correct?

     But even if it is correct, if male and female domestic violence victims shared a facility, would you really rate that as an outrage that “dials back” rights for women to a darker age, even when concerted efforts are still being suppported to reduce and eliminate DV for everyone?

     So excuse the question, but are these two points your best demonstration of MRAs wishing to dial back women’s rights?

123. I never knew much of anything about MRAs until I started visiting this site (about a week or ten days ago). My question is, as a general matter, are there areas of common ground between MRAs and feminists? Can a person be an MRA and a feminist at the same time? Are there any feminist MRAs? Or are feminism and men’s rights necessarily antithetical to each other?

     I don’t know if Hugo takes requests, but I would love to see a post on this question.

124. I’ll give it some thought… interesting idea.

125. “I don’t think “men” are trying to do anything. MRA’s, however, are not exactly pro-choice and of course are against efforts to protect female victims of domestic violence inside woman-only shelters.”

     First: some MRAs are pro-choice and some are pro-life — you know, just like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul were pro-life.

     Second: MRAs want to ensure that abused men have a place to go. Right now, they don’t, save for a handful of shelters that have room for them.

126. “Perhaps there are some who wish to make all domestic violence shelters coed. I don’t claim expertise in this area. bmmg39 – is this correct?”

     Speaking for myself only, I’ll say that I want there to be places where abused men (and there are approximately as many of these as there are abused women) can go to be safe from their attackers. I certainly see the logic in having single-sex facilities, but certainly men need SOMEWHERE to go.

     There is currently a case in CA in which ten female-only DV shelters are being sued for discrimination. It’s not just that they don’t have a place for men; it’s that they are hostile to anyone who asks the question. In all of gigantic Los Angeles County, there is just ONE facility that accepts men (Valley Oasis), it’s out in the boondocks, the other centers won’t tell abused men of its existence, and they even have given much grief to the poor woman who runs Valley Oasis for — and I quote — “helping the enemy.”

     Have separate wings, have separate buildings, put them on separate streets, I don’t care. But men need a place to go (and in some cases bring their children) if their female or male partners are attacking them.

     bg
     http://www.safe4all.org, Stop Abuse For EVERYONE

127. “Can a person be an MRA and a feminist at the same time? Are there any feminist MRAs? Or are feminism and men’s rights necessarily antithetical to each other?”

     I’ve been trying to say for a couple of weeks here that I don’t think they’re at crossed swords at all, although (again) I do like the word “egalitarian” moreso than “feminist” for reasons I’ve repeatedly mentioned.

128. I am convinced that, at their core, MRAs and feminists want exactly the same thing, and I have said it here before: justice and human dignity. My experience has convinced me that one cannot seek these things for ones self while trying to deny them to others. It results in a diminishment of both, primarily for the denier. This is why it saddens, rather than angers me, when someone – of any persuasion – somehow thinks it in their interests to deny the right of another to seek these.

     This is why I am saddened by the “Angry Harries” of the world, who do not realize the damage that they is do to themselves – far more than to those at whom they strike out. This is why I am saddened at the Ampersands who proclaim their lists of “male privilege”, which are an indictment of a target group and not an empowerment of anyone.

     I am the ally of women who fight discrimination wherever they find it, whether they are feminists or not. I am the ally of men whose trials are trivialized and dismissed because they couldn’t possibly be truly suffering – after all, they are the “power group”.

     The honorable battle, to me, is the battle for human dignity for all, and for justice – for ALL. When all are empowered, there remains nothing to fight about.

129. My experience, also, is that labels are often used for destructive purposes, when applied to a perceived enemy. Thus, each house of cards requires a “bogeyman” to support it – a common enemy against whom to rally the troops. It works. The troops rally, and the bogeyman is kept at bay, bearing the burden of holding up the house. Groups needing their bogeyman to survive, however, never do so for long. Not unless their house can be rebuilt in such a way that it does not require the common enemy to sustain it.

     The bogeymen that I have seen used in this way include: MRAs, feminists, Jews, liberals, conservatives, pagans, infidels, “dead white males”, patriarchy, illuminati, miltary-industrial complex, corporate America, outsourcing, men, women, Catholics, protestants, homosexuals, democrats, republicans, whites, blacks, and many more. Of course, there is a legitimate use for each of these terms, but the “bogeyman” usage is when the term describes the collective enemy, and carrying the label of the term automatically strips one of all credibility, if not of all human worth. When a label is sufficient to save one the trouble of judging an individual on his/her merits (or to make the result of that judgment almost a foregone conclusion), then the house of the adjudicators is of cards. This is my truth.

130. Shit, Stanton, you and I might get along.

131. Ophelia – that is about the cleverest name I have ever heard! Original?

132. I’ve enjoyed reading all the posts here. I particularly liked your “bogeyman” post, Stanton. I also agree that MRAs and feminists want the same thing– or at least they should.

133. (Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply)

     Keri said:
     “Well, first of all, I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that feminism calls upon men to be “more empathetic.” I keep up with the feminist community fairly well, and I’ve never once seen a feminist say that one of the goals of the movement is to make all men get in touch with their feelings.”

     In The Gender of Sexuality p. 48, feminist sociologists Schwartz and Rutter claim: “the pressure on men to be more sensitive, less predatory, and less macho has been mounting for several decades.”

     I am not necessarily talking about the current feminist community. I am talking about changes that were probably set into motion in the 70′s and 80′s. Also, even if feminist women haven’t been interested in having men get in touch with their feelings, pro-feminist men have.

     What about feminist messages do I consider problematic? I am still trying to figure this out myself, but I will do my best to answer your question. By making society more aware of power dynamics between men and women (a good thing), feminism may have created a social atmosphere that encouraged men to feel guilty and walk on eggshells around women. Furthermore, feminism created a large amount of distrust towards male sexuality (some of it justified; some of it not), which some men internalize.

     Even if one believes that men should be made to feel guilty for their “privilege” (which is highly disputable), or for their sexuality, it doesn’t change the fact that guilty men are not sexy men. Neither are men who are so scared of offending or patronizing women that they are constantly watching their tongues or being extra nice. (Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that the less I obsess about saying “the wrong thing” to women, the more they seem to warm to me.)

     If a young guy gets a message like “don’t patronize women” pounded into him, then it may become an axiom upon which he builds other beliefs on how to behave. Since the messages are “don’t patronize women” or “have respect for women” instead of “don’t patronize people” and “have respect for people“, they imply that there is something specific to women which entitles them to special treatment. Or it feeds into a Victorian image of women. Such conclusions may be both erroneous and unintended by feminism, but they are derived from the messages men receive.

     I agree that this may well be the result of a miscommunication. Nevertheless, most miscommunications are rarely the fault of only one side.

     As for distrust of male sexuality, let’s look at things like date rape seminars. When I was 15, nationally known victim of date rape Katie Koestner came to my high school to speak. Now, I have nothing against the concept of date rape seminars in principle, but I think the goal of them should be to make people aware of the facts. The speaker went much farther than that: she broke down in tears several times and described her rape in graphic detail, such as how she chewed out the inside of her cheek during it. That level of drama was just complete and total overkill, especially considering that there were 14 year-old freshmen in the audience. Surely date rape can be addressed in a way that isn’t potentially emotionally scarring.

     At one point, she was asked: “so then how should guys initiate sex?” She said that she didn’t know. What do you think that did for my confidence with women? I’d spent the last hour hearing a graphic description of the wrong way to initiate sex with a women, but given absolutely no hints on the right way. I can’t help but wonder if one of the problems behind date rape is that our culture has no clue about how a man should initiate sex with a woman.

     I came out of that assembly feeling guilty about myself for being a man, and totally helpless on how I should approach women. Of course, that reaction faded over time, but I am certain that the seminar did have a lasting influence on my attitudes towards women. Even ignoring the fact that I was too young to think critically about it, were my reactions totally unfounded? Was it just my fault for “misinterpreting” the messages?

     Again, the only thing feminists have consistently said about male gender roles is about the same as what they said about female gender roles– that a prescribed set of behaviors and attitudes and personality traits is harmful for anyone, and the idea that biological factors make men and women drastically different is harmful as well. Is that wrong?

     No. The problem is that freeing people from gender roles must be a gradual process (assuming it is possible to interact with people with absolutely no roles at all). Even though a world without gender roles may be a nice ideal, that is not the world we live in right now. Hence, even if change happens, people must be socialized to deal with each other the way they are, not the way they should be in some genderless utopia.

     Honestly, I don’t think the average woman is ready for a guy who is completely “freed” from his gender role. This could mean that those women are not free enough from their gender roles themselves, or it could mean that some aspects of gender roles cannot be completely dispensed with (at least not yet).

     Right now, men still need to play by some of the rules of gender roles to be successful with women. For example, most women still expect men to initiate everything. Until this changes, it is a double-edged sword to free men from their gender roles; those roles may be confining, but they are what allow success with women.

     Unfortunately, being the initiator means being actively rejected sometimes, and being rejected means being stoic and investing less emotionally in future prospects. A system that requires men to be more stoic than women widens the gap between the sexes. This becomes even worse when men are given a disincentive to emotionally invest in women they approach.

     Even if men and women aren’t made drastically different by biological processes, they are made different by social processes such as the one I described above. Regardless of where these difference come from, there are major differences in attitudes between men and women towards sex and relationships, and we can’t try to pretend that these don’t exist.

     The article I linked to here (you didn’t see it before because it wasn’t a hyperlink, because I haven’t figured out how to make them in this interface): http://stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=15629&repository=0001_article

     Note that the author considers herself a feminist. I suspect that her perspective is hardly unique among women.

     I will reply to the rest of your points in my next post…

134. Since my response has gotten ridiculously long, I don’t mind if you only reply to the points that interest you the most.

     Keri said:
     I still don’t think it makes any sense to dump all or even most of the blame for the “nice guy problem” on feminism. Seems like quite the opposite to me– if a “nice guy” were really behaving the way feminists recommend that he should, he wouldn’t approach interactions with women from the perspective that he is entitled to their attention and affection simply by virtue of being male, and he would respect women as individuals who are capable of making their own decisions instead of insisting that they’re stupid/masochistic/don’t know their own minds/etc. because they’re not dating him.

     Hmmm, when I think of a guy who believes that he is entitled to attention and affection from women simply by being male, I don’t think of a “nice guy.” Given my past experience as a nice guy, and the experiences of other guys I’ve talked to, I think a nice guy is more likely to hold the opposite attitude: he doesn’t believe he is worthy of attention or affection from women at all. Hence, he goes out of his way to earn that attention, which leads him to kiss up and look insecure. If a nice guy does act like he is entitled to female affection, it would be because of all the favors he has done for her, not because he is male.

     The idea that feminism is to blame for men disrespecting women and treating them like objects and trying to manipulate them into bed is pretty preposterous. Men didn’t need feminism to teach them how to do those things– they’ve been doing them for ages, since long before feminism became a household term (and yes, I know not all men behave this way, but throughout history there have always been some men who have). The “nice guy” thing is just an attempt to draw more flies with honey than vinegar– really, it’s the same old manipulation and misogyny dressed up in nicer clothes.

     I promise you it isn’t that simple. First, I am not claiming that feminism is directly to blame for men direspecting or manipulating women, or directly teaches them to do so. That behavior is the result of men being insecure, and not knowing how to approach women in a more productive way. Nevertheless, I think feminism has contributed to an environment where men feel insecure and helpless about how to interact with women. I don’t know whether that means feminism should be blamed or not, especially since chivalry may be an even bigger factor in the belief systems of nice guys.

     The idea that nice guys are just horny wolves in sheep’s clothing is incorrect. I don’t deny that there is some truth in the stereotype of men donning a facade of niceness to manipulate women into bed, but not all men are just out to get laid. I think this view of nice guys is more likely to be in the minds of women based on experiences with a few such guys, and on the stereotype that guys are just out for sex.

     The kind of nice guys I am talking about are more likely to be romantic and interested in relationships, and frown on one-night stands. They are more likely to feel guilty about their sexuality and separated from it. They are nice less to manipulate women, and more because of low self-esteem and a Victorian image of women. They may have such a low opinion of themselves that they try to buy the affection of others, or they may try to be a “knight in shining armor” and protect or save women in some way.

     A book which describes the psychology behind “nice guys” pretty well (at least in my opinion) is No More Mr. Nice Guy by therapist Robert A. Glover.

135. Honestly, I don’t think the average woman is ready for a guy who is completely “freed” from his gender role.

     Who wants to date somebody ‘average’?

136. “I mean I feel like a black person here arguing with a white one who keeps denying anything bad ever happened to me…and I’m getting angrier and angrier about it…”

     I’m black and I feel bad for white people. I wish black people would just shut up about it (racism) already.

     Who wants to date somebody ‘average’?

     Me.