This week’s column at the Good Men Project looks at Amy Winehouse, Damsels in Distress, and the under-discussed prevalence of White Knight Syndrome. Excerpt:
Guys with WKS have a variety of motivations. Some grew up in families with self-destructive mothers, aunts, or sisters whom they were unable to save from addiction. Now that they themselves are adults, White Knights hope that romantic devotion will be the “missing piece” that will turn them from ineffectual, heartbroken bystanders into heroes.
Other White Knights are guys who adopt rescuing as a kind of competition strategy. As one of my students once told me, “I knew I’d never be the best-looking or the most athletic. But I figured I could love harder and stronger than any other man out there.” This becomes less about the rescue of a flesh-and-blood woman and more about proving that the White Knight is “not like the other guys.” Men with WKS like to think of themselves as rare exceptions in a world filled with abusive or emotionally toxic men.
But the biggest emotional payoff of WKS isn’t the fantasy of being the one to rescue the self-destructive damsel. Rather, by devoting single-minded attention to those whom they imagine to be so much worse off than themselves, White Knights get to avoid taking a hard look inwards. Whether it’s focusing on a drunk and addicted pop star or a suicidal girlfriend, rescuers dodge the often painful and challenging inner work that they need to do so badly.
Many men tried to rescue Amy Winehouse from her disease; in the end, they failed. These guys – and the millions of men who imagine they would have done better in their place – need reminding that chemical dependency is often stronger than love. Without losing all compassion for the victims of addictions, White Knights need to stop falling in love with vulnerability and weakness. And they need to start falling in love with strength, stability, and the will to live.
Read the whole thing.
You really miss a big piece of White Knighting (especially when you’re Nice Guying), in that it offers a narrative for how/why a woman could be attracted to a man, something that’s often missing.
In the feminist jargon, we say “women are the sex class” – if a non-platonic relationship is the transfer of sex from women to men (and it’s usually narrated this way), then it’s infinitely lopsided. A narrative of value flowing the other way is hopeful when you feel hopeless, because it helps make it plausible that a relationship would be something a woman would reasonably want. I dunno, it certainly seemed like the most promising narrative to me when I was an adolescent (well, maybe after getting pregnant, but that was hopeless at the time, of course.)
I totally agree with you on this. I don’t consider myself a feminist, but I believe in equality and in the idea that “gender” is all about behavior (actually I stole that idea from Judith Butler, but I agree with her as well). WKS men sort of irritate me because their kindness isn’t based on a genuine concern, but it is based on their need to avoid their own issues of control. Another thing that bugs me about white knights is that they’re never successful in their rescue. I’ve yet to meet a WK that actually got the job done … have you?
Ahh, one of my favorite topics! The problem with WK’s and their female counterparts is so often, they view other human beings (namely the ones they are looking to save/fix) as projects rather than people, and so often their actions are more about self affirmation and their own egos than the other person they …admire.
I also tend to think being a WK or the female equivalent of can be a very, very dangerous game, because going after troubled and wild/bad sorts exclusively? That shit can be actually dangerous. I’ve known more than a few of that breed, male and female, who have had everything from their hearts to their faces broken by the subject of their affection/obsession or that subjects friends/actual S.O.s, dealers, so on….
As someone who was a sex, alcohol, and drug addict, Hugo Schwyzer is in no position to talk about White Knights.
It was women with Bad Boy Syndrome who probably kept feeding his addiction for years and rescued him from all of his scrapes. For a “reformed” Bad Boy to be critiquing White Knights is pretty rich. (Yes, the reformed is in scare quotes because in my mind, the jury is still out on how much has really changed in Professor Schwyzer’s life.)
Agnes, get judgmental much? Freakin’ rich you roll in to tell someone what they can and cannot discuss and say they are in no position…what, lemmie guess, you are sinless yourself? And how, exactly, would you know what any woman did for him, really? Talk about rich, sheesh!
Grow up, Agnes.
I see WKS from a skills standpoint… in their minds, these guys are practicing their social skills, their relationship skills, are “learning how to be heroes”. They are “exercising their muscles”, because after all, skills are muscles and you’ll lose them if you don’t use them. Above all, what is to be avoided is staying out of the game and waiting to be called on.
That’s an idea I myself have struggled with: the idea that being respectful of others’ feelings means staying put and waiting for others to ask for my help, my participation, my sharing of their life or a moment in it. The prospect of waiting my life away for other people has been so unbearable to me that it frequently has made me act in an awkward manner: my desire to do something and exercise my “skill muscles” any opportunity I could, overrode my consideration of what’s appropriate.
I acted this way because I had an intense need for my relational overtures to be requited. Because in the real world, that’s the only way anything worthwhile between people gets done– you can’t have marriage, a business partnership, or a citizen’s vote without requition.
Having our overtures be successfully requited is also usually the only way we can prove to others we have good relationship skills. Which is absurd because the mechanism of this “proof” is out of our control!
Yes, these guys can take a hard look inward and come to the conclusion to stop being White Knights, but in practice that would mean a lot of not getting what you want out of life and having to learn to be OK with that. That would mean a lot of not getting the social support system you need, the romance you would like to have, or even the life experiences you believe would make you stronger and more interesting. Because those things depend on other people making their free choice to accept you.
Ren,
I do not agree with Agnes’ tone, nor her unfounded remarks about Hugo’s recovery.
But I find it difficult to dismiss her primary point.
I have 3 close friends I have known since freshman year of high school (we’re in our late 20s now). During high school and into our undergrad careers, I was definitely one of the bad boys of the group (drug use and whatnot). I also never had a difficult time finding girlfriends, nor did my primary partner in crime.
The two “good guys” of the group, however, had disastrous dating lives.
Later on, both of the good guys decided to join fraternities because, by their own admission, they felt like they had to be “bad boys” in order to have the dating lives they wanted. Once in the fraternities, they both began to get mixed up in PUA crap and its own special brand of misogyny (and yes, it IS misogynistic, I’d be happy to have that argument).
The point of this story is, these are my close friends, I know what they were like, what they are like, and how they got there. Yet Hugo refuses to acknowledge their experiences. Indeed, until VERY recently, Hugo refused to acknowledge that for some men remaining “involuntarily celibate” might even be a problem at all.
Because they are my friends I listen to their experiences, and I accept that their feelings and emotions are real. I honestly do not know what it is like to involuntarily go for years without romantic companionship, and I do not pretend to.
Yet Hugo does. Hugo, by his own admission, has never been wanting for female attention, yet that does not stop him from speculating about what goes on in the minds of those who have wanted. Furthermore, he argues that guys who cannot develop relationships just aren’t willing to do “necessary inner work.” But this is not different from saying that someone who is overweight is just “not willing to exercise hard enough” – it’s overly simplistic, and often flat out wrong.
Indeed, until VERY recently, Hugo refused to acknowledge that for some men remaining “involuntarily celibate” might even be a problem at all.
It’s a problem in large part because for the last 15-20 years, our whole media has been on a tear about how important relationships are for not only our emotions, but our physical health. When you pick up a pop-health magazine– the form of pop culture we probably trust the most– and reading many different variations of pushing the idea that we are social creatures and we are always better coupled/partnered/grouped up than not, that can’t help but have certain effects… like making those of us feel more desperate if we find ourselves alone. Because after all, our health and increasingly our employability ride on being part of a couple or group. We HAVE to get social validation, come what may.
I’m going to speak up for my friend Hugo here as someone who knew him well. As I recall, he was both a Bad Boy and a White Knight. When he was at his infamous woirst and sleeping with his students and lots of other people, he had this series of sweet young things (mostly his age, to be fair) who fawned on him and took care of him. But Hugo was also totally in love with this one woman, a ex-girlfriend who was even more of a hardcore addict than he. That was the woman he was trying to be a White Knight for, and she was also the one he was trying to kill in the murder-suicide he wrote about.
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/01/03/what-you-need-to-remember-what-you-need-to-forget-on-self-acceptance-after-doing-something-truly-awful/
Huges, a comment on this? Can you be both a White Knight and a Bad Boy at the same time?
Re: (Yes, the reformed is in scare quotes because in my mind, the jury is still out on how much has really changed in Professor Schwyzer’s life.)
Thank you Agnes. You’ve said virtually the only thoughtful and worthwhile comment on this blog in quite a while. If Mr. Schwyzer had really changed, then he wouldn’t be making a career out of writing intellectual defences of pornorography and other vices. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mr. Schwyzer’s next post be a defence of North Indian families use of sex-selective abortions. With a blog of this low moral and intellectual calibre, one never can tell.
Re: I honestly do not know what it is like to involuntarily go for years without romantic companionship, and I do not pretend to.
I’d certainly rather go involuntarily without romantic companionship, then have Mr. Schwyzer’s prodigious history of misbehaviour on my conscience. As the saying goes, what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his soul.
Hugo refused to acknowledge that for some men remaining “involuntarily celibate” might even be a problem at all.
Whenever I see the phrase ‘involuntarily celibate’, I note that the rest of the phrase that is missing.
The full phrase should read ‘involuntarily celibate with respect to the class of people one finds sexually attractive’.
Or to put it crudely, if you are holding out for a 9-10 in a world where most folks are in the 4-6 range, don’t expect any sympathy about your claims of involuntary celibacy.
Mike:
I am not going to deny there are a lot of women who go for bad boys and a lot of guys who-because they aren’t or what have you- utterly lack dating lives. Why women go for the bad boys is somthing I don’t actually get, and I say that as a woman who has a lot of male friends (friends only) who are bad boys-so yeah, I know what they are actually like. Yet, by the same token, lets not act like being “involuntarily celibate” is a unique to men thing. True enough I actually believe it is far easier for a woman to go out and get sex whenever she wants it- but an actual relationship/dating life? Not so. I say that as a woman who would know, actually. I went on my first ever date a 19, and then found out later the only reason the guy (who came across as a nice guy) asked me out was One- he figured it would piss off his parents, and two- maybe I’d put out. One happened, two did not. By the time college rolled around-and into present day-well, sure, I can find plenty of fellas who would not at all mind having sex with me, and actally really want to- but, heh, the genders ain’t equal and I am still not the kinda gal alot of folk would take home to mother. You see I personally possess a lot of the qualities one associates with “bad boys”, even though I am female- I admittedly like to drink, have been known to do drugs, have a horrible temper, I have a ton of ink, I like porn, I have been in my fair share of fights, as is dictated by the fine redneck tradition of my family- I am a gun owner, I have many friends with university degrees- I also have a few who spent those years in correctional facilities…and why, yes I have a really cool car…and I have, in fact, dealt with my fair share of White Knights. I actually believe with most of those fellass- their hearts ARE in the right places, but all too often such men while they are attracted to who you are, they are truly interested in the vision of what they can make you after they have saved/helped/fixed you. There is a huge difference there, really. It’s one thing if a person WANTS to be saved/fixed/helped….its another if they feel none of those things are needed. I would be in group two there, and in truth, there is nothing more infuriating than some person standing around saying “I love you for who you are- now change, and I KNOW HOW TO HELP YOU DO IT”!” WHich is the M.O. of the White Knight- and his Good Girl female counterpart. Shrug. As I said before- a person is not a project.
Hell, I even ended up getting married and such- still am. THe fellow I am with? He is neither a bad boy or a white knight but rather a guy somewhere in betweeen. He has a wild hair and has done some crazy shit in his day- but over all? Solid, funny, takes care of his business- and loved me as is- bad parts and all- and did not try to change them.
Moral of the story I guess is- White Knights? You know, I can feel some empathy for ‘em even if they piss me off- but I think by in large their M.O. and desire to save does nothing but set them up for a whole lotta heartbreak and disappointment in life. Hell, I done both to a few in my day.
C’mon JohnE, that “You must be morally deficient if you have problems” attitude isn’t helpful or true.
People are involuntarily celibate for a host of reasons, but people who’re celibate because they’re particularly picky are voluntary celibate. Social inability is the typical problem (whether because someone hasn’t learned the necessary skills, or because they’re in the wrong emotional place to use them), and guys who think they deserve 9s or 10s typically have no problem being involved with women they think less of; they just treat them like shit.
Most’ve the men I’ve known who’ve been involuntary celibate spend periods being situational homosexuals too. It’s a different script, and often easier for them to figure out. Frankly, I’ve found historically that raising my standards is typically how I’d get out of those funks (probably because I’d stop giving myself pre-emptive rejections).
Brian, I never said anything about being morally deficient, just about being overly selective.
My observation is that finding a sexual/romantic partner is just a numbers game – the more you put yourself out there, the more likely you are to find someone compatible.
Also, would you or somebody like to define ‘involuntarily celibate’?
For example, if a married couple is on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday sex routine, is it at all reasonable for the guy to claim that he is involuntarily celibate on Tuesday and Thursday?
Ren,
At no point did I claim that women have an easier time developing relationships than men. Personally, I’m not even sure it’s easier for women to have sex than it is for men.
I just want Hugo to acknowledge that men, like women, face a great deal of difficulty when it comes to achieving the sort of relationships that they desire, and that this difficulty is a source of very real emotional pain for many men (just as it is for women).
In the past, Hugo has argued (without proof, and in the face of overwhelming personal testimony) that women who prefer “bad boys” either do not exist, or are such a small part of the total female population as to be irrelevant.
Then he has to gall to claim (based solely on his own personal testimony, the exact kind of evidence he has ignored when it comes from other men) that actually men who prefer “bad girls” exist, that they are numerous (he makes it sound like a majority in some of his classes), and that these men are either too weak or too cowardly when it comes to doing “inner work.”
I cannot emphasize enough how unhelpful this is. Men face real difficulties and have real emotions, just as women do. Hugo needs to acknowledge those difficulties and emotions.
I want to be clear: this is not about “calling out women,” this is about saying “Yes, men have had these experiences, they are real experiences and they are plentiful, they cause pain and frustration, and those emotions are not the sole fault of men experiencing them,”
Is it really so hard to admit this?
Mike:
Hey, I agree with you on much of this stuff- men are real people with real feeling and real hardships and issues and such things- but at the same time, Hugo is not obligated to write what others think he should be writing or in a manner they think is more fitting. Heck, anyone can start a blog- if you feel Hugo is not addressing things that should be addressed, start one! Hell, might be good for you and others to see the other perspective on these matters and such.
Personally, I think a LOT of women and men go through a phase where they DO tend to be more attracted to bad boys/girls. I think (not fact, but opinion) guys tend to go for such girls because well, they think they are “easier”- sex wise….and gals go for the bad boys because well they are edgy and dangerous and there is a thrill attached to being associated with such a sort- and both will do so to piss off their parents LOL. BUT, as folk get older, I think a lot of them get over this and start looking at people in a more full and complex way. SOME don’t- with some it becomes a pattern- like with White Knights and Good Girl types. Hell, I write about this kinda thing myself a lot. Its my personal opinion that the majority of folk DO eventually find someone that suits them and have some sort of good life with them….
But no, it does not mean that there are those who don’t, men and women alike- and thier pain and such is a real and valid thing and shouldnt be discounted.
**wrt the its easier for women to get sex thing- I do believe that most women, if they were of the mind to, could go out on any given night to a bar or club and pick up a dude solely to have sex with him. This is not saying she’d get an ideal guy or one she might sleep with normally, so on- but if she is JUST wanting sex and not being picky- I reckon she could do it. I am not sure men could as easily.
JohnE – you didn’t explicitly, but the implication is pretty strong. That it’s their own fault for being celibate, demanding perfection from their partner while being disgusting slobs themselves.
It is a numbers game, partly (though on any given chance, some people are far more likely to be successful than others). But “putting yourself out there” can be a complicated/difficult/obtuse problem. Not knowing how to put one’s self out there is probably the main cause of involuntary celibacy.
Like anything, I’m not sure we’d all agree on a precise definition, but I’d say something like “Being unable to have sex if it was required of them, on some long timescale”. Like, if you would die if you didn’t have sex in the next year, how likely would it be that you’d die? If it’s fifty/fifty or more, probably involuntary celibate (which is why I kinda hedged on whether I’d have ever defined myself that way; at my worst, I was probably only fifty/fifty)
Re: and gals go for the bad boys because well they are edgy and dangerous and there is a thrill attached to being associated with such a sort- and both will do so to piss off their parents
Actually, Ren, if you want to know the real reason why men and women tend to prefer Bad Boys and Bad Girls, you can find the answer at my blog post here.
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/love-and-sex-in-modern-america/
Well, heck Brian, even your description of our hapless hypothetical guy as being a disgusting slob doesn’t imply a moral deficiency. Maybe a hygienic deficiency, but that’s not the same thing.
But “putting yourself out there” can be a complicated/difficult/obtuse problem. Not knowing how to put one’s self out there is probably the main cause of involuntary celibacy.
And like any other skill set, a guy can train to improve those those skills.
Ren,
I don’t believe that Hugo should write what I (or anyone else) thinks he should write.
However, he presents his theories for public comment. Included in the public comment should be a critical reading of his theories.
I am extremely critical of Hugo’s theories because I believe that they have a tendency to de-humanize men. At a certain point, when you ignore the experiences and emotions of men, you are no longer allowing men to be fully human.
Looking specifically at his piece of “White Knights” he argues that men who are overly sensitive to their partners needs do so out an an unwillingness to do important “inner work,” and further, that they are being overly sensitive specifically to avoid such work.
Yet this is not substantially different from a host of discredited theories that look something like:
“Inner city youths are avoiding adult responsibilities by joining gangs,”
“Poor people are avoiding the hard work involved in earning a living by staying on unemployment,”
“The overweight are lazy and refuse to do the hard work of exercising and eating correctly,”
In every instance, these arguments oversimplify and dehumanize. I see no reason why Hugo’s argument is any different; this is an important reason to be critical of his writings on this topic.
Re: And like any other skill set, a guy can train to improve those those skills.
Ah, the ghost of the late and unlamented Horation Alger strikes again, I see.
The perennial optimism is one of the things I find most insufferable about American culture.
Apologies for straying somewhat from the ever-constant topic of “involuntary celibacy,” “putting oneself out,” etc. that pops up (and with merit) whenever these kinds of topics come up, but getting back to the original “bad boy”/”white knight”/”damsel”/etc. narrative–
The Ben Roethlisberger wedding this past weekend was curious to follow. In addition to its connection to the fact that every instance of bad behavior by NFL athletes ends up being viewed through the ever-controversial prism of race and social class, it seemed like every discussion and article about it the last few months, since the public first became aware of Mr. Roethlisberger and Mrs. Harlan-Roethlisberger’s relationship, focused in some way on how the new Mrs. R was supposedly “saving” Ben from his “inner demons,” that he either became or pretended to be a “reformed bad boy,” or on the idea that Mrs. R exhibited “poor judgment” in being with him.
Without knowing the inner workings of their situations–the couple have done a lot to live privately, although we know that Mr. R had known her for years and dated her previously, between times of also dating several celebrities and having several incidents in bars/hotels with women–what merit or non-merit do each of these have?
I’m not sure if people should be so questioning of Mrs. R’s judgment. Doing so may be NiceGuyism.
Having been a WK myself in high school and kinda one in college, I’ve thought about this a great deal. My theory is that many WKs are hurting inside themselves, and think that by pairing with a person who’s clearly suffering, they will get -
A. the satisfaction that comes with helping someone who’s hurting
B. the appreciation of that woman
C. “fixed” themselves from the self-esteem boost from the relationship and the good feelings that come with “saving” someone”
D. understanding and empathy from that person when the WK hits the inevitable rough patch.
I don’t think it’s as much about male control as Hugo and some others believe. But it’s a dangerous tactic, to be sure. A-D are some serious assumptions. I’d be interested to see if anyone here has any insights on women who try to “save” men – do you think what I’ve outlined above could be applied? I know since women are “nurturers” it might be more “natural” for them to take up that role. But I can’t help but wonder how many of those women who “save” Bad Boys came into the relationship already hurting inside.
Well Hector, with that kind of attitude, you’re never going to find a nice girl with whom to discuss the Nature of The Trinity.
“And like any other skill set, a guy can train to improve those those skills.”
Yup. They can fall right into the waiting arms of misogynist PUAs, who’s shitty advice is plastered all over the internets.
yeah…or they could practice talking to people while maintaining eye contact or getting flustered, asking open ended questions, getting comfortable asking personal questions…stuff like that…
because there’s a hell of a lot of room between painfully shy guy and asshole PUA
“because there’s a hell of a lot of room between painfully shy guy and asshole PUA”
But that’s just it, I was *shocked* at how quickly my friends made the leap from no-dating-success to PUAs-have-the-answer.
One of my good friends was probably a “white knight,” though it’s obviously hard to be certain. He spent a year of his life basically waiting hand-and-foot on a young woman who was happy to use him for all he was worth before discarding him (to be clear, this was my impression, he defended her the entire time). The narrative of “see what I’m willing to put up with?” was probably alive and well in his head, though the rest of us were constantly concerned about our friend being stuck in an obviously unequal relationship.
I do not blame her, they were both very young at the time, and we all make mistakes in life, hopefully she has since grown as a person.
Yet, when she inevitably dumped him, he was hurt and bitter and angry. He had watched his friends have success with women for years while he was alone, and when he finally found the “right” young woman she was terribly manipulative.
And here was a cadre of men (the PUA crowd) waiting to tell him exactly what he wanted to hear:
ALL women are ALWAYS manipulative
Being “nice” will NEVER get you anywhere
ALL women think men are interchangeable, so treat them like they are interchangeable
And the PUAs have websites, and messageboards, and books, and TV shows, and a network of guys who “swear by” the “methods” they advertise. And here I am saying “No, just go put yourself out there! You’re a great guy, you’ve just been unlucky!”
I never stood a chance. The distance between “shy guy” and “PUA subscriber” is really just 1 bad breakup.
Hector:
Snerk. I’m gonna go read your Real Reason -love how you just state that shit as fact rather than an opinion, expecting it will either make me laugh or piss me off, but yep, I’ll read it!
Mike: I actually agree there is a lot of dehumanization of men out there, period and over all- and I actually dislike it a lot.
et all: PUA’s are a whole special kinda odd IMO
Regarding the recently deceased Ms. Winehouse, she seemed to suck quite a bit of the life and time out of the men in her orbit who would have “saved” her (and, apparently, her ex-husband still hasn’t learned: http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/870626-blake-fielder-civil-i-could-have-saved-amy-winehouse-if-i-wasnt-in-prison). I’m of the opinion that both her behavior, and increasingly her appearance, became objectively pretty disgusting (something that may speak as much to the relatively unfettered perspective that the modern Internet tabloid establishment provides, perhaps), so I have a hard time understanding how and why anyone could be that caught up on her, but perhaps that does speak to the power of “WKS.”
Maybe its either my econ background or my personal experience, but I can’t help thinking on the discussion of either White Knighting or selectivity that a big issue that ought to inform the discussion is the opportunity cost of getting involved with anyone. What do you give up?
I white-knighted for my ex-wife through six years of marriage, that took up most of my twenties and severely negatively affected my psychological well-being, hurt my academic performance and career opportunities, and cut me off from who I might have met in that span of time when I was younger and had more time. I lucked out in still having some opportunities in all those areas left to pursue after I divorced her, while she pretty much went right back on the same path she’d been on when I met her, which confirmed for me the facts of what our relationship had been and why I was right to end it. It still cost, though, and left a deficit I’m going to be making up for for some time to come.
And that’s the thing, with regards to both white-knighting and “involuntary celibacy,” or whatever one wants to call being selective. You can “expand your pool” or put time and emotional attention into a broader selection of people, even ignoring the fact that they’re crazy, fucked up, or you’re just not that into them, but you’re going to pay for it. It’s not a consequence-free decision, and you’re going to wind up with less than you would’ve had if you’d just done nothing, or been on your own, or even gone for getting over yourself and just set out to get laid and foregone the relationship complications if you could’ve pulled that off.
Bottom line, nobody is worth “saving,” at least not in the context of a relationship. You get involved with anyone who takes more from you than you get back from them, you’re going to get pulled down with them one way or another. Anyone worth being with should be expected not to need a White Knight or a Good Girl or whatever other person to fix them. None of us in the world are really, objectively, that “special” to be with. That’s just a nice delusion people get into when they’re in love that feels great, but shouldn’t be risked or wasted on anyone who isn’t at least capable of not being a millstone around their partner’s neck. Anyone who thinks otherwise gets what they deserve when they find the “special person” they’re looking for.
How, how I hate it when PUAs try their games on me. Negging and all that crap.
What’s wrong with being a self-confident good listener? That’s what does it for me.
Without losing all compassion for the victims of addictions, White Knights need to stop falling in love with vulnerability and weakness. And they need to start falling in love with strength, stability, and the will to live.
Maybe you could have phrased this in a way that didn’t suggest that women with serious problems are nothing more than “victims,” a damaged class that are vulnerability and weakness, such that the only proper emotion they can inspire is compassion, with love and desire for them being faintly obscene. The essay was going so well up to that point, too.
Rather than suggesting that men “fall in love with strength,” maybe imagine that they could fall in love with people, rather than a set of appropriate or inappropriate attributes?
The problem with ‘white knights’ — the specifically feminist problem, as opposed to the universally human problem — is not that they love people who don’t deserve it. It’s that they position themselves above, as heroes and rescuers — as you recognize and affirm. So suggesting that they remove themselves from the turmoil and difficulty of love and raise themselves up to the level of lordly and benevolent compassion? That does not actually solve the looking-down-on issue.
The problem with this is that it’s not useful advice. Being unable to bridge the gap between the platonic and the non-platonic isn’t just further along the spectrum from being bad at it; they’re different problems. Guys don’t become involuntarily celibate because they try and fail; they become involuntarily celibate because they’re unable or unwilling to try (or both, I suppose).
Which’s why the PUA stuff appeals to easily. Someone who says “Here’s how you try.” is saying exactly what they want to hear. I dunno, maybe I’m speaking from my own experience too much, but I didn’t change anything about myself when I went from wildly unsuccessful to moderately successful; I just found a moral basis for being willing to risk upsetting someone by expressing interest, which I’d previously lacked.
Alexa: The thing that kind of amuses me about PUAs (heck, I have read ‘The Game’) is that so much of the stuff these dudes pay other dudes to teach them is stuff, well, that women have been doing for…YEARS. Without books and paid off mentors!
I just found a moral basis for being willing to risk upsetting someone by expressing interest, which I’d previously lacked.
On the occasions when I’ve worked up the nerve to express interest, one of the ways I got over my fear of upsetting someone was to tell myself, “Hey, if this person isn’t interested, I’m giving her an opportunity to say no, and clear the air.”
“The thing that kind of amuses me about PUAs (heck, I have read ‘The Game’) is that so much of the stuff these dudes pay other dudes to teach them is stuff, well, that women have been doing for…YEARS. Without books and paid off mentors!”
Like what? I haven’t read “The Game” and know very little PUA stuff.
PM: acting disinterested when they are, the neg thing, shit like that.
Mike,
ALL women are ALWAYS manipulative
Being “nice” will NEVER get you anywhere
ALL women think men are interchangeable, so treat them like they are interchangeable
If these things are untrue, women aren’t doing a terribly good job of proving it to all the Lonesome Nice Guys out there.
Thomas,
When I took econometrics, my professor told us the story about the man who searches for his keys under the lit streetlamp, because thats where he can most easily see, when he knows he dropped them in the darkness of the alleyway, where he cannot easily see.
In that class it had segued into sampling bias, but like all versatile stories, it can be applied to much in life.
We have a tendency to find what we are looking at, but not necessarily what we are looking for.
I have been lucky enough to find countless women in my life (romantic partners, friends, aquaintances, and relatives) who do not reflect any of those statements. But I have also not been where you have been and see what you have seen.
Look wider and search harder before you give in to generalizations. After all, that’s what you would want a woman looking for you to do, isn’t it?
Thomas & Mike:
Thomas brings up an interesting phenomena- the idea that anyone, but apparently especially Lonesome Nice Guys- are somehow deserving of/ entitled to good relationships and women who love ‘em for being them. And sure enough, its an idea that is literally SOLD to us from the time we enter the world to the time we exit it- movies, books, television, all kinds of things are out there telling humans that you know what? They deserve and are entitled to a good relationship with a good person- esp if they are lonely good sorts. Now, maybe there is some merit to the deserve part, hell, I personally think good people do deserve good things to happen to them- good relationships and other things- however…there are no guarantees or promises in life, no fine print that appears at the moment of our births that we will get anything we might actually deserve, and that includes relationships. Relationships are one of those things no one is obligated to give anyone else, and there are no promises various people will ever get one…
I also sorta wonder, because for every Lonely Nice Guy out there, there is probably a Lonely Nice Girl- and you’d think that somehow, some way, some of those lonely folk might find each other and end up NOT so lonely, but as I both look and read around out there in life and here on the net- that seems to not happen. I kind of wonder why- but I have some unkind suspicions. Eh, I have read The Game after all, and I do think some of these lonely nice guys sure as heck want a woman and a relationship….but not if she is fat, or not reasonably conventionally attractive, or “sexy”, or well, this ideal of the woman they want in their heads. And that just might be why they are lonely…
Now, sure enough people are attracted to and want what they want- but no woman (or man) is obligated to give a lonely someone anything, and its nothing that was ever an actual guarantee in life for any of us.
but as for this….
ALL women are ALWAYS manipulative
actually, all humans are manipulative on some level, its not a gal only thing by ANY stretch!
Being “nice” will NEVER get you anywhere
In the long run, being an asshole jerk won’t either….
ALL women think men are interchangeable, so treat them like they are interchangeable…
Uh, WTF? Really? Then explain folk who are married for long stretches and still madly in love?
And yeah, that attitude is not one of a Lonely Nice Guy- its the attitude of a whiny jerk who really there should be no question as to why they have no love life. The whole ALL WOMEN ARE BITCHES, WHY DON’T they like Me is pretty self defeating, really….
…I just found a moral basis for being willing to risk upsetting someone by expressing interest, which I’d previously lacked.
Wait…what?
“PM: acting disinterested when they are, the neg thing, shit like that.”
Ah, right. I think both genders do the former somewhat, but PUAs do it worse and the neg thing is mainly PUA dudes. I’ve never heard a woman neg to get a date. I HAVE seen a woman at a party goad 2 guys into one-upping each other because they were both interested in her and she was bored. Never seen a dude do that before, but it won’t surprise me too much if I ever see it.
I never mentioned entitlement. My point was that guys who don’t fit the culturally accepted criteria for what it takes to Get The Girl are going to have a hard time of it, due to the acculturation among both genders. Men are conditioned that nice guys finish last. Women are conditioned that nice guys are “boring” and that what you really want is a Bad Boy. (And because you’re such a Special Snowflake, your love will tame him of his Bad Boy ways. I mean, shit, it’s the plot of every romance novel in existence.)
I’m sure there are a number of people out there who feel entitled to the partner of their dreams and resentful that this person isn’t banging down their door. But that has nothing to do with what I was getting at.
Ren: Please don’t put all the onus on one side here. Let me rephrase part of your post to show you how things work both ways.
Eh, I have read The Rules after all, and I do think some of these lonely nice girls sure as heck want a man and a relationship….but not if he isn’t rich, or not reasonably conventionally attractive, or “sexy”, or well, this ideal of the man they want in their heads. And that just might be why they are lonely…
Heh, reminds me of this comic: http://xkcd.com/800/
Thomas: Things do work both ways. Never said otherwise- there are women and men out there who are like that, plain and simple.