Defenestrated On “Nice Guys”
| April 6th, 2007[This is a comment left by Defenestrated in one of the male oppression threads. With her permission, I'm making it a post of its own. 1 --Amp]
So, for example, if a young UU man likes a young UU woman, what he does is he goes over to her and tries really hard to be harmless. He doesn’t want to oppress anyone by expressing interest or desire, so he just hangs around and acts cooperative. The more he wants her to like him, the more submissive he acts. Not surprisingly, the young UU women find this boring, frustrating, incomprehensible, and just not sexy. He doesn’t understand why this doesn’t work, or why all the young UU women are off dating “bad” men instead of “nice” men like himself.
I think that in this particular instance, there’s something to be said for having had the experience of living on the opposite end of it. There’s a reason that there’s a Nice Guy™ moniker, and it’s not because women don’t dig actual kindness.
From the young UU woman’s perspective, there’s this guy hanging around her (or, more likely, multiple guys doing the exact same thing), pretending to only be interested in friendship when, from your description of the situation, it’s clear that his interest doesn’t end there. Even if the attraction is painfully obvious, since it’s never stated the woman can’t very well come right out and turn the guy down for something he hasn’t asked for. If she does, trust me, she’ll get torn to pieces for being so full of herself (after which the guy will probably resume the kicked puppy pose).
The specific male quandary you’ve described stems from a belief that by hanging around and being “nice,” a man is entitled to female affection. I have a lot of sympathy for a lot of situations that hit men, but being upset by not getting what they won’t ask for (and will thus often try to extract through manipulation, like pretending to be a friend when the friendship is treated as a tedious and insulting means to something else) isn’t one of them. Also, many - by no means all, but enough to make it a more than reasonable concern - of the kinds of guys who make this particular kind of complaint are only a step or two a way from outright stalking the object of their desire. The use of the word ‘object’ isn’t accidental.
I sympathize with the frustration and confusion, but that’s not the same as sympathizing with the reasoning behind the complaint. When I hear one of my own male friends voicing these kinds of concerns (or other anti-feminist thoughts that since we’re friends I know don’t come from malice or any intentional disrespect) I’m happy to help him see the opposite side of his experience and understand why things are that way. What I won’t do is agree that he gets to complain that his female friends aren’t all over him for being so cooperative and friendly. Especially if it comes along with a blanket disparagement of the judgment and tastes of said women (who says the men they date are “bad”? The men they don’t date? Is there a bias there?).
That doesn’t make me an unempathetic person. It makes me a person who knows that to actually relieve this form of “harm” against men without them changing their own behavior would have to mean taking the right to choose one’s own partners away from women. It’s empathy that makes me more interested in pointing out and clarifying the communication disconnect than commiserating about how selfish these independent women are for not being available for every man’s every whim. It’s also empathy that makes me understand that the situation you describe is also difficult for the woman involved, and likely provokes a (well-founded) fear that the man in the equation probably hasn’t faced, and usually doesn’t register.
- The original disagreement turned out to be a misunderstanding, but Defenestrated's comments apply very well to several to self-proclaimed "nice guys" I've encountered, even if they were a little mis-aimed in the original context. (back)
April 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
That’s . . . er . . . not defenestrated.
That’s me, quoting an ex-roommate of mine, Sharon.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Ahhh, okay, I see what you meant. I thought you meant that the quoted portion was defenstrated, and the rest was your commentary.
It’s all good. Carry on.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Well put. I often contend that a.) people who content that “nobody likes guys when they’re nice” will find that the behavior these guys are demonstrating isn’t exactly nice, it’s just non-confrontational and passive; and b.) that it’s not just men who experience this problem, I just feel that there’s a little more pop culture group-think around the whole “nice guys finish last with women” idea. Your point about the fact that most women do in fact like actual kindness is a good way to articulate it.
This comment was written by elena.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I think you are completely off base on your in depth interpretation. Chicks dig assholes. Though it can be frustrating to try to rationalize that simple fact, its usually true (of course there are exceptions and degrees). As someone who has tried many techniques over the years and have observed friends successes and failures, adopting a somewhat snotty and arrogant attitude usually works the best. The only problem comes later when they find out that your not really that snotty or arrogant.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. If you desire a consequence, you had damn well better choose the action that leads to it.”
–Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan
The original post makes a very good point. Regardless of people’s preferences, if you don’t ask for something you really have no right to complain if you don’t recieve it. This is true in general, and the things that it’s not true for tend to be those enshrined as fundamental rights. Even for those, it is often the case that if you don’t make an effort to get them, you will be deprived of them unjustly.
This comment was written by jae.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m happily out of the whole game. But I can attest that during my late teens and early 20s, when I was in fact an arrogant prick pretty much 100% of the time, my romantic success was absurdly good. During my 30s, when I started to turn it around (really) and develop some maturity, humility and basic decency, it seemed as if women found me much less interesting.
I’ve read various explanations for this, including the feminist ones about how the phenomenon doesn’t really exist and the people (men) who complain about it just feel entitled to sex and get resentful when they can’t get any. I think there’s a lot to those critiques; there ARE an awful lot of “nice guys” who are actually just (a) entitled and (b) passive/wimpy in their pursuit of sex with women.
But there also does seem to be a fairly large subset of women who seek out men who will treat them disrespectfully/badly, and who aren’t interested in mature, decent men. Which, in all likelihood, is simply demographics - we all start out immature and stupid, and gradually rectify those flaws with the passage of time and the accumulation of experience. I don’t see a whole lot of women in their 40s looking for bad boys.
Most likely, the perceived prevalence of the phenomenon is simple: many guys in their 30s and 40s are still more interested in women in their 20s and 30s. When you’re looking in a pool of people that is inherently less mature, of course you’re going to find a lot more instances of immature behavior and desires.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Like Robert suggests, there’s not really any contradiction here. Both things can be true, at the same time.
Yeah, some girls do like jerks. And yes, at the same time, there are whiny guys who expect girls to fall all over them for being “nice,” which is completely absurd — and when taken to a more extreme degree, leads into the territory of emotional manipulation and abuse to coerce sex out of someone. I have heard way too many horror stories about seemingly “nice” guys who flip out and turn into whining, demanding babies or raging victimized demons out for revenge when they’re denied sex. These kinds of guys are one step short of rapists in my contempt list… they use words and wheedling and guilt to try and get what they want, instead of force and taking advantage of women when they’re incapable of consenting.
The usual complaint you hear then is, “oh my god, how can I win? I’m not supposed to be a jerk, and I’m not supposed to be nice either! I give up!” The answer is, that’s right, you can’t “win.” There is nothing to win, this is not a game with a boss monster and a high score. If you expect (or feel entitled to) sex out of interactions with women, you are an asshole — and quite possibly not the kind ANYONE likes.
On the other hand, if you’re not an asshole of that sort, you might meet someone you like and who likes you, and you might manage to socially interact in a way where you’re both comfortable and can express mutual interest, and then maybe you can have a relationship that includes romance and/or sex! Fancy that! Amazingly, there seem to be plenty of people who manage to do this all the time — and they are not all jerks, or smooth operators, or the popular kids in high school, or rich, or jocks. They’re just not emotionally stunted sex-entitled babies.
See also this kinda mean, sardonic pop-culture humor version:
This comment was written by Holly.http://www.blacktable.com/elder040212.htm
Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
[...] If you don’t ask, you shan’t recieve This discussion over at Amptoons is really quite interesting. The original post put a finger on exactly the problem I’ve had in the past, before I decided the nice-guy routine was no substitute for the “you just ask her?” routine. It’s also an exact analogue of what I usually say:”When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. If you desire a consequence, you had damn well better choose the action that leads to it.”–Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan (Comment on this) uncleamos [...]
This comment was written by Humans.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I agree both with the original post and Robert’s analysis. In my own experiences, I find self-labelled “nice guys” to typically be passive-aggressive jerks. They act nicely, but have underlying issues that come out later. So I’m wary of the guys who seem a bit too perfect. They’re often “nice” in the sense that they want you to make all the decisions, but making all the decisions means taking all the responsibility for them. Being “nice” is a useful tactic to avoid taking any responsibility for anything, yet appearing delightful.
And if you ditch a nice guy once you discover the reality, everyone thinks you’re just awful because he’s so sweet and innocent. I prefer an equal with a few flaws - just like I have, than someone to watch out for all the time.
On to Robert’s post - I had a student (high school) who was just the sweetest guy, and he was smart and cute and friendly. Another female teacher and I questioned why he didn’t have girls all over him. Then a male teacher said, “You like him now, but think back. Would you really have gone for him when you were 16?” I think he was right. He’s just not cool enough for the adolescent crowd. It takes a while for people to get over themselves enough to appreciate human decency.
This comment was written by Sage.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
UU??
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
UU
Unitarians.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Are we talking about fully enlightened, self-aware, feminist women making free choices about what kind of men they desire? Or are we talking about teenaged girls struggling to cope with media influence, family pressure, hormonal surges, etc? I don’t expect much maturity or strength of character from adolescents, not from girls or boys.
This comment was written by Adrian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I have to wonder if these nice guys ever notice the nice girls (usually not the “hawt chicks”) who think the *exact* same thing about the nice guys. IE ” Im a nice girl but all he wants is a hot chick who ignores him and treats him like shit”.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Reproductive fission looks better with each passing year. Then we could all just be friends.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
FormerlyLarry:
me:
FL:
Me:
Maybe if you didn’t think of women as machines who require the right code or “technique” in order to gain “success,” you might have better luck. Thank you, though, for bolstering my point.
_____________
Robert, on the other hand, makes good points. To me, the forty year old chasing twenty year olds (and thereby implicitly shunning women his own age) is no different from the guys pheeno described. Both whine about not being praised for their substance when substance is exactly the last thing they want in a woman.
OK, that’s all, I’m staying out of this. I had surgery two days ago, I should be sleeping. Thanks for posting this, Amp :D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Oh, but I like engaging in non-reproductive fnucking.
This comment was written by Flamethorn.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Could someone explain to me the rules regarding when a sense of entitlement is good and when it’s bad? Because I’m not getting it.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Brandon,
Do you recognize that individual interactions are embedded within larger power structures?
Do you recognize some things as being things that people are entitled to, and other things that people are not entitled to? Do you recognize that food and shelter are things that people need, but sex is not something that anyone actually needs?
Do you recognize that people’s bodies and what they choose to do with them are actually more personal than people’s property and what they choose to do with it?
If you don’t, then I’m sure I can’t help you.
If you do, then combine those things together. You’re smart, I’m sure you can work it out.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Double Dose: Remembering Wendy Wasserstein, Online Abuse Directed at Women, Must-See Fat Rant
Manhood and Medicine: Teenage boys who hold some traditional beliefs about what it means to be a “real man” can undermine their sexual health and good preventive care in general, according to research published in the April issue of Pediatrics…
This comment was written by Our Bodies Our Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 1:25 am
I am a former Nice Guy(tm), so I will weigh in. I think there are actually several types of Nice Guys(tm), some of which are accurately described by your post, and some that have different motivations.
If the guy is acting this way, I see how it can look like he is just pretending to be interested in friendship when he really just wants to get her in bed. And that might be his motivations. But there are other motivations that can underly his behavior. He might not know how to express sexual interest in her. Maybe he is shy about it. Maybe he fears rejection. Just because he is male doesn’t mean that he can perform the male role of initiator. Many men are not suited for this role. If they don’t know an acceptable way to express sexual interest, then their only choice is to act like a friend, or even to act “harmless,” like the person quoting in the original post says.
So, a guy hanging around a girl he is attracted to can mean he:
1. Is manipulatively pretending to be friends in order to get in her pants OR
2. He has trouble performing his role as initiator, and is getting to know her as a friend because he doesn’t know what else to do.
I believe that some Nice Guys(tm) really do feel “entitled” to female affection. Other Nice Guys(tm) might simply believe that female affection will follow from their “nice” behavior, and be shocked when it doesn’t, or assume that something is wrong with the woman. This is still a skewed view of female desires, but it isn’t the same thing as an entitlement mentality. Rather than feeling entitled to female affection, I think many Nice Guys(tm) feel unworthy of female affection.
Are they upset about not getting what they won’t ask for, or about what they can’t ask for? Imagine that you are obsessed with someone. The more you are into them, the more you will fear rejection, and the more anxious you will be about asking them. Imagine you decide to ask them out. You decide to do it tomorrow. You wake up that day, and as soon as you wake up you think “oh shit! This is the day I have to ask that person out.” You immediately start feeling anxious, which lasts up until you run into that person.
As soon as you see them, you get an even worse anxiety attack, and your hands start shaking. Your vocal cords lock, making it difficult to force words from your throat, and making you stutter when you can. You try to find an opening to say what you want to say, but in your current condition, you just can’t find a chance, you can’t get them alone, or you can’t get the words out. Anyway, you have no clue what to do. You say goodbye to them and give them a hug, like, well… a friend. Then you beat yourself up for being such a “wimp.” You resolve to ask the person out the next day, or next week. You wake up that day, and start immediately feeling anxious, and you go through the whole ordeal again. Eventually, maybe you get it right. You probably get rejected, which is a blow to your self-esteem. With the next person you make advances on, you remember your past failure…
I don’t know how typical this kind of experience is, but these types of barriers, at either a less or more extreme amount than what I describe, are common for males who aren’t temperamentally fitted for the masculine gender role, and are a bit more anxious or shy or unassertive than average. The point is to show why a man might have trouble expressing sexual/romantic interest in a woman for other reasons than posing a facade of friendship.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 1:26 am
I agree, and this was a hard lesson for me to learn. I think it’s important to realize where this mistaken view of female sexuality comes from. These guys have had the notion drummed into their head that the primary thing women want in men is nurturing, empathetic, cooperative, or altruistic behavior. (Women certainly want those qualities in mates, but they are not enough to create attraction on their own.) Men get these ideas from parents, romantic movies that show women swooning over male displays of devotion, books, magazines, and female friends who complain about what jerks guys are. A lot of supposedly “romantic” behavior in movies would really be stalking or just plain creepy if done in real life.
When the efforts of these men are unsuccessful, the only logical conclusion is that there must be something wrong with themselves, or with the women they are pursuing. The root of the problem is not identified: the cultural discourse that brainwashes them into an outdated view of female sexuality that is damaging to both them and the women they encounter.
I think there is a way to solve this problem without giving men a right to sexual access to women. The solution is for our culture to stop lying to men about how female sexuality works. That way, they will be less likely to shoot themselves in the foot when approaching women, and they will be less likely to hold unrealistic expectations about how women will, or should, respond to them. I’m pissed, because if only I hadn’t been lied to, I wouldn’t have had to spend so many years resenting female friends who didn’t reciprocate my attraction to them.
While women can be the victims of wrongheaded notions of female sexuality that have been brainwashed into men, men with these views are also victims in a different way, because their resulting behavior will be unattractive to women, or even drive them away, making it difficult or impossible to date or have relationships at all.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 1:31 am
defenstrated,
To wrap up… If you are interesting in fully understanding the motivations of Nice Guys(tm), I would make several recommendations for how to look at their behavior. I can see that you are trying to empathize with these guys, but unfortunately that empathy is limited by the narrow way you are interpreting their behavior. Instead of understanding that men are people too, people with complex motives, people who can be confused, hesitant, or shy, it seems that your post just tries to interpret their behavior as cynically as possible. I understand why you would have a cynical interpretation: I can totally see how women could feel manipulated by Nice Guys(tm). Still, just because his behavior is perceived as manipulative, it doesn’t necessarily mean that his goal is to manipulate you. Likewise, just because Nice Guys(tm) are confused and hurt that women don’t want them after all their “nice behavior,” it doesn’t mean that they necessarily feel entitled to sex (though it certainly can).
I think you are underestimating the difficulty of playing the active role for men without stereotypically temperaments and personalities. By assuming that these men are being manipulative in not expressing their sexual interest, you may be ascribing misogynistic motives to a guy who just can’t perform gender very well. This is a triple whammy: not only does he have trouble approaching women he are interested in, but he and others view him as an unmasculine “wimp,” and to make things even worse, feminists view him as sinister and manipulative.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Something that’s interesting is to look at the piles of mail that male prisoners on death row get from women, and also the fact that women even marry lifers or men in jail for a long period. Ted Bundy got so much mail from women that he couldn’t keep up with the mail. Jeff McDonald (he was convicted of killing his wife and children; he claims it was intruders) even got married to a woman who is trying to get him out. There are lots of examples of that. I think these people are “bad boys” to an exceptional degree.
This comment was written by Nemo.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 7:49 am
First I think that the label is a little too simple because it forces the assumption that the ‘nice guy’ only wants a relationship. I think it’s both possible and common that the nice guy wants a relationship, but also wants to be friends. Obviously there’s a subset that’s being deceptive and passive aggressive. I just think you’re broadening the label more than is appropriate.
I think women do this also, but in a different way. I have no data on the subject, but I’ve seen a number of situations where the girl likes the guy but can’t (or won’t) communicate well enough to be rejected and close the situation. Rather than passive aggressive (”No, I don’t mind walking you home from the bar. You really liked that one guy? That’s so cool.”) I’ve seen women become more provocative and end up in bed with the guy. Than there’s a lot of heart ache about that.
Either way, it ends ugly.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 8:03 am
This above-mentioned belief is sometimes justified. It usually happens–having heard and had these conversations first, second, and third hand–because the women involved says that to the guy who has a crush on her.
And why does she/he say this? Not because they are eeeeevul, but because young humans of either sex are generally happier when a lot of people want to date them (the more the better) whether or not they intend to reciprocate. girls do it; boys do it.
that makes it a bit more of a two way street: the “nice guy” (or “nice girl”) involved tends to be poor at saying exactly what they want. And the other party often is, to some point, deliberately misleading them.
I mean, come on: don’t we ALL know someone–many people, perhaps–who openly profess to like ______ kind of partner, but whose actions differ 100% from their claims? maybe they just don’t like to say “I prefer abusive partners” but it doesn’t seem fair to blame others for believing them.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 8:41 am
defenestrated
Though I appreciate your advice, I am sure the wife would frown on any attempt to further hone my date getting skills. Look, most male mammals have to fight and defeat rival males to get the girls to like them, our mating dance is just a little more subtle. And from a male POV there are certainly “techniques” that will improve your chances to get a date for Saturday night. Countless books have been written on the subject. I am not sure why you would deny that. I might have been a little more blunt, but I didn’t write anything that Robert didn’t repeat later in a post that you didn’t take issue.
Clinically stripping away the romantic veneer, if a guy wants to have a lot of female attention it will help tremendously to be rich, famous, infamous, or an asshole (and I will add as an honorable mention: very funny). I don’t think that’s controversial or even judgmental about women’s choices; its simply stating the obvious based on observations and experience. IMHO most men know this whether or not they are able to act on it.
Now all that might change with maturity. Just turning 40 and being out of the dating game for a while now, I don’t know. Maybe after women have past their reproductive years they look for different qualities in potential mates. Or maybe the choices are just more limited. Again, I don’t know, just speculating.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 8:48 am
You can also thank all those romance novels for telling little girls that they can *change* the Bad Boy and if she’s just the perfect girlfriend and loves him enough, he will eventually LOVE HER SO MUCH that he will change, just for her. If she doesn’t give up on him, and loves him even though he’s an asshole, he’ll learn about True Love and they’ll have the fairy tale.
When those so called nice guys complain about those women, they’re complaining about women who believed the fairy tale. Meanwhile, Cinderella is sitting in the corner wondering why her prince charming is too busy drooling over the hot chick to even notice her.
And sometimes, we just want to have fun. We’re not looking for a *mate* we’re looking for someone to have fun with, adventure with and hot sex with. When we grow up, then we start considering what we actually want in a relationship thats going to last more than 6 months.
I’ve had several guys over the years bitterly inform me that they wanted to go out with me when we were younger and they resented just being friends. Evidently, my friendship wasnt valuable enough unless sex came with it. I point out they never asked me out and now that I know what they really wanted, Im glad they didnt. And then they get weeded out and dropped into the Asshole pile.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I guess I’m a little confused, Pheeno. You liked these guys enough to be friends with them, but finding out that they had wished for a more involved relationship but lacked the nerve to say so at the time is enough to make them assholes? And presumably, being “weeded out” means they’re no longer your friends, either.
Maybe I’m missing some information here.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
No, finding out my friendship wasnt enough without the pussy attached is why I think theyre assholes. They’re pissed that I was just a friend. Im sorry, I thought I had offered friendship and not a big steaming bag of shit. Guess not, according them. Without the pussy, friendship is second rate crap or something.
They had me fooled, I thought they actually enjoyed my company and had no idea they were really resenting the fact I wouldnt hop into bed and be pleased and proud to have them bounce on top of me.
My translator must have been broken. I didnt realize “hey wanna hang out” really meant ” fuck me”.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Oh and to clarify it abit more, Im still friends with my friends from HS. I couldnt tell you where the guys I dated are now. Which do you think holds more meaning? The friendships that have lasted 20 some odd years or the 3 month long relationship with a guy I can barely recall?
That they’d rather have the fleeting 3 month “relationship” over being invited into my life for something thats meaningful enough to last over 20 years tells me they werent friends at all.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I date assholes because I believe in punching my own weight.
Ok, that’s mostly a joke. But this is the thing, really- and I do have to ask this- How on earth is a guy going to deal with actually dating me if he cannot get the balls up to make a move? Also- to be honest, most Nice Guys(tm) require a level of patience that I just do not have. I think a lot of the time, guys who are insecure will think that guys who are secure and confident are assholes. Sort of like how a lot of girls will think that a girl who is prettier than they are is a bitch. It’s not all that different a situation.
This comment was written by Miss Robyn.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I dunno about this “girls like assholes” thing. My fiance is short, shy, he doesn’t talk to people very much, he’s feminine in a lot of his behaviors, and he’s very genuinely giving of himself and his time even when there’s no ostensible reward (read: actually nice).
He’s also had more sex with more partners and combinations of partners in more various ways than almost any other guy I’ve ever met.
a.k.a. If we’re going to battle about “anecdotes” and “common sense,” then I’m sure lots of people on the board can conjure opposing ones.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Mandolin:
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.How did he meet those partners, if he’s shy and doesn’t talk much?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
OK, I lied. I’m not entirely staying out of it, but nor can I promise to make complete sense ;)
Brandon, introverts are a minority in a world of extroverts. We don’t have to talk much in order to frequently find ourselves having conversations - sometimes to our consternation or befuddlement, but sometimes not.
Hugh, in your observations about shy men, I think you’re missing the part where I’m talking about guys who aren’t just lonely, but who respond to their loneliness by making up some inherent flaw in women to blame it on, rather than by taking responsibility for their own behavior. You say:
But how are the parts I bolded any different from an ‘entitlement mentality’? Believe that x will follow = Expect x. Y being shocked and blaming X for not liking Y = Y feeling entitled to X’s affection. I know I’m on a lot of drugs right now, but the ‘unworthy of female affection’ thing strikes me as a total non sequitur after part about how they ‘assume that something is wrong with the woman.’
And what pheeno said, especially at #29.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Actually, in fairness, I do understand that underlying feelings of unworthiness create this sort of mindset. It’s just that even those feelings come from the basic sense of entitlement that underlies the concept of the “male initiator role,” which rests on a model of ‘courtship’ (or whatever) as a male-person’s active choice of a passive female-object.
Once a guy lets go of the idea that it’s up to him to initiate a relationship, 1) he can get to know a woman as a person rather than as a pussy who inconveniently brings along a person who must be won over, and 2) whether or not a woman has a reason to be interested in him gains relevance over whether or not he has used the right ‘technique’ in approaching her.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Do you ever ask yourself, “How on earth am I going to deal with actually dating a man if I can’t get the ovaries up to make a move?” If no, doesn’t that point to a certain level of feminine privilege?
I agree that there’s some truth to the idea that envy is often a part of why people think of their sexual competitors as assholes.
But I also think there’s reality to the evaluation as well. There’s a violent indoctrination which occurs with boys growing up, with the result that victimized boys tend to not have confidence, while bullying assholes do. Females tend to gravitate towards the alpha dogs. Obviously, not every confident, secure male is an asshole, but I think it’s fair to say they’re disproportionately represented in the mix. (I think there’s a similar dynamic revolving around the ‘mean, pretty’ queen bees.)
This comment was written by ballgame.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I’m reading this thread and being reminded of this post on From The Archives.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Battered women shelters exist: assholes are quite adept at getting women.
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I think some of the effect commented upon by Robert @ #6 and similar comments must lie in that asshole behavior is, as a rule, “louder” — registers more — than non-asshole behavior. Not always, but as a general rule — i.e., you can have passive-aggressive asshole behavior (which, as has been pointed out several times, many self-labeled “nice guys” are doing) and then you can have “loud” non-asshole behavior, but it’s tough to perform the latter and make it work.
It IS possible. I’ve seen various versions of it. But frequently screwing it up makes for either asshole behavior or other versions of looking uncool. Maybe someone else can take the comment from here, as I’m not able to lay words on the versions of doing it right or not-right that I’d like to describe.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“Battered women shelters exist: assholes are quite adept at getting women.”
And every single one of them started off as a Nice Guy.
Its not like they walk up, slap you and say ” I beat women, drink too much, fart in my sleep hey, wanna go out?”
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Hugh Ristik:
Your description of a certain type of nice guy in post #20 was dead-on accurate for what happens to me when I try to approach a woman to ask her out on a date. I don’t think anyone could possbily improve on it. It’s just so frustrating to be incapable of putting myself out there, and being told that I’m basically not a real man or simply not worthy of any woman. It’s so infuriating and humiliating to have spent my childhood being bullied and ostracized, and to now spend adulthood utterly alone and without any sort of romantic companionship because I’m too psychologically scarred to make an approach. I think I have a lot to offer. I’m reasonably intelligent, empathic, my friends all laugh at my jokes and say I’m very funny, I’m a good conversationalist on a variety of topics, etc. Alas, it seems I’ll never get to share it with a partner.
But I dare not complain about it, or I’m a Nice Guy who must secretly hate women. I don’t at all. But the sexually or romantically successful just seem to have no idea what it is like to be pigeonholed into role that demands I do the impossible, lest I be seen as some sort of untermenschen. I can only ask out women who I have known for awhile, so I get to know them as friends first. Sometime for years, until I feel utterly, completely at ease with them. The last time I expressed my feelings and desires to a woman it was after I had known her for ten years, and I’m certainly not going to stop being her friend, best friend, actually, just because she said she didn’t feel the same way. Hey, I still have a friend, right? But it does get so frustrating to never get any positive reinforcement, and sometimes I do complain about it. It’s not that I think I am entitled to the affections of any specific woman. It’s just that it doesn’t seem to be asking too much that in our society I should have had at least one relationship by the age of 29, and I think I have a valid gripe there in that the sole reason why I haven’t is because I fail to meet a standard that is unrealistic and unattainable for many men.
Anyway, I totally agree that every time the dreaded Nice Guy get’s brought up, there is no consideration for the fact that not all Nice Guys are the same. Yes, many are passive-aggressive whiners, and these guys are definetly not nice. But many are also just not capable of living up to the unrealistic and incredibly demanding societal norms that we place on males, and I don’t see why they should have to, either. I think I’m every bit as capable of being a loving partner as the next guy, but since I can’t just ask for a phone number within minutes of meeting someone I fancy, I and others like me get the Nice Guy label, even if we have nothing in common with the passive-aggressive ones everyone seems to be complaining about.
This comment was written by Glitch the Obscure.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Hi, Glitch.
Let’s take this at face value. You are a genuinely nice guy, not a fake passive-aggressive nice guy. Okay.
With all due respect, I think you still need to explore the area that lies between asking for her number in the first few minutes and not expressing your desires for an entire decade. I realize, more than most, how hard it can be finding that middle ground — but just because something is hard, even incredibly hard, doesn’t mean that it’s unfair that it’s required.
Shyness sucks (and I know this from personal experience — almost every romantic relationship I’ve ever had, she had to ask me first). For men or women, the number one way to not have much romantic success is to be shy; and crippling shyness will cripple most people’s romantic life.
But — apart from arranged marriages — I can’t imagine any reasonable social system in which crippling shyness wouldn’t be a mortal blow to a person’s romantic life. We should certainly move to a system in which both women and men ask people out (and in some crowds we have moved to such a system), but waiting to be asked isn’t a solution, either — especially since the non-shy are also better at attracting people to ask them out.
In other words, I certainly agree with you that the “unrealistic and incredibly demanding societal norms that we place on males” ought to be done away with. But even after doing away with those norms, what I suspect is your essential problem — which is that crippling shyness can ruin (or prevent) people’s romantic lives — would remain in place.
That said, I also think you’re absolutely right about how scarring bullying and ostracization can be. Some people, for whatever reason, seem able to rise above it and leave that stuff behind once they’ve left school behind. For others, the scars and the limitations imposed by the scars remain for years, and maybe forever. This is one reason I think ending all bullying is an essential social issue, and not just a pity party.
But — and I’m really so, so sorry to say this — I have no practical advice to offer former victims of bullying and ostracization. It sucks, and I understand that it sucks, but know it sucks isn’t a solution. Frankly, if I knew how to get rid of those scars, I wouldn’t be carting around those scars myself.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 12:06 am
By the way, I want to make it clear that in the past, I’ve done exactly what Defenestrated describes in this post — hanging endlessly around a female friend I had a painful crush on but refusing to ever take the risk of asking “can I kiss you”?
I don’t think this means that I was an asshole back then. I do think that the way I acted was wrong, however. My friendship was sincere; but my refusal to accept the risk and possible pain of being honest about wanting the friendship to become a romance put the woman I had a crush on in an uncomfortable and unfair double-bind (as Defenestrated describes).
In the end, all parties — me included — would have been better off if I could have made myself ask and be rejected. (Or not.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 12:35 am
She totally wanted you to kiss her, dude. Fortunately she found solace in my arms.
(Well, fortunately for me, anyway.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Amp (May I call you Amp?):
The ten year wait was the very outer limit of my efforts. Generally, I get to know a woman for several months before I attempt to progress the relationship. Still seems like too long.
Also, I can’t speak for others, but while I am shy I wouldn’t call it “crippling”. I have friends, quite a few by my count. I’m perfectly fine with people who approach me, but I just can’t bring myself to approach strangers unless we are in some sort of rigidly defined role. Talking to a random stranger just to make conversation is not something I can do, but I can have a perfectly fine conversation if they approach me first. Likewise, I have no problem talking to store clerks, or asking directions from a police officer. It’s ambiguous situations where I might get emotionally hurt that I cannot willingly enter. Having been pretty cruelly rejected before, I just can’t force myself into it.
I really think that for a lot of “Nice Guys” who are really just shy and sick of being single, they would have vastly improved romantic lives if we lived in a society where a man could wait for a woman to approach and not be criticized as “not having the balls to approach.” Sure, they still would be missing out on a lot of opportunities with women who are themselves shy, but at least they would likely have some romantic experiences. They may very well go nowhere but just the feeling of being wanted can be pretty empowering and good for one’s self-esteem.
Regarding bullying, if anything I think you might actually be underestimating it’s prevalence and effect on some “Nice Guys.” I am not aware of any studies on the notion of a link between being a victim of bullies and an adult life of unsatisfying or nonexistant romantic experiences. I do lurk of boards for people who have tremendous difficulties in romantic relationships (or any sort, really) and while there are some people who report fairly normal, pleasant peer experiences in their formative years, these people seem to be the exception to the rule. I think the enforced shyness (”Don’t trust people, they’ll hurt you.”) and impaired self esteem (”I have no friends, people are mean to me, maybe I deserve it.”) are very deletrious in themselves.
Also, consider the lost opportunities to learn appropriate dating/mating behavior when it is considered socially acceptable to do so. I spent my high school years as far away from my peers as possible. What few friends I had were pretty much in the same situation as me. We were all males and all alone, with no romantic prospects. We tried to pass the time thinking about anything else. Meanwhile, our peers were experimenting with dating and having sex. I thought things would get better when I got to college, but I found myself a 12-year-old boy in the body of an 18-year-old man. I didn’t know anything about romantic interaction and it showed. People didn’t think I was shy, they thought I was pathetic.
This is a pretty common complaint among both men and women on these boards I frequent. They feel like they are “out of step” with their peers or have “lost time.” Many complain of feeling like they never really transitioned into adulthood like their peers, since they never experienced what seems pretty common in modern high-school age adolescents. As time marches on they tend to either become very desperate (and thereby less attractive) or just give up entirely and commit themselves to finding peace with celibacy. It’s an unfortunate situation, and I’m mired in it myself.
I take you at your word that you don’t what to say to a survivor of bullying. I don’t either. I think if we made a much greater effort to stamp out childhood bullying in our society, we would likely wind up with far fewer unassertive or shy “Nice Guys.”
This comment was written by Glitch the Obscure.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Glitch said:
That guy was me. This is a common experience for males who have a temperamental predisposition towards introversion and anxiety. These males are also particularly vulnerable to bullying (happened to me too). Thanks to my personality, and the bullying, I started off on the wrong foot with girls when I hit puberty, leading to painful initial experiences with women.
I did get past it once I got sick of it, but only with a lot of work. Some resources that might help:
- How To Succeed Socially: The general social advice may or may not apply to you, but the website has some great, non-sleazy but still practical advice with women.
- LoveShy.com: if it sounds like it applies to you, then check out the book on the website.
I don’t know whether you are at a place where you want to work to recover from inhibitions with women, but that stuff at least might help you feel better about where you are. If you (or any other of the nice guys that I know are lurking out there) want to continue discussing these issues in detail, or ask specific questions, you are welcome to come over to my blog (just post in any comments section, and I will respond).
And as you have found, by then it is usually too late for her to see you romantically.
Yes. Unfortunately, feminism is very unhelpful in helping guys in this position, and can even make them worse psychologically, because it just makes them walk on eggshells with women even more (that’s one of my main gripes about it). The first step in recovering for me was to realize that my lack of romantic success with women wasn’t my fault, but that it was my responsibility to change things if I wanted to be with a woman. Something else to consider is that the reason you are having trouble meeting that standard isn’t just because of you, but also because of the negative social experiences you have had. I believe that if I hadn’t been bullied and psychologically messed up from a young age, I would grown up feeling a lot more comfortable around women I was interested in. As I managed to undo more and more of that damage, approaching women because a prospect that was possible for me to contemplate, and eventually achieve.
Men don’t have the right to have sex or relationships with women. Yet men do have the right to not be psychological damaged and abused in a way that makes sex or relationships with women difficult or impossible (e.g. childhood bullying that wrecks self-esteem and social skills).
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I take you at your word that you don’t what to say to a survivor of bullying. I don’t either.
Sometimes we say “I’m sorry”. Perhaps not everyone contributes to a bullying culture, but I know that I at least did as a child. My apologies for that.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:35 am
pheeno, I disagree. I’ve known women in abusive relationships ( not always of the physically abusive type) and their male partners were never Nice Guys who one day turned into Assholes before the women’s very eyes. There were signs along the road leading to full-fledged assholery that were missed by the women, but almost always picked up on by those of us not invested in the relationship. Sure, I’m using the availability heuristic to make my judgement but I don’t know of any statistics that exist on this particular subject.
__________________
And now back to the topic of the post…….
Nice guys who complain about women not wanting them are usually under the mistaken impression that “nice” is synonymous with “passive-aggressive”, “boring”, “safe”, “unadventerous”, “wishy-washy”, or “bashful”. Sometimes being with a “nice” guy is like spending time watching pant dry–physically speaking there is nothing wrong with him and on-paper he has all of his ducks in a row but actually spending time with him is unenjoyable; and, instead of the guy recognizing his character flaws that make him unattractive or the fact that the two of you just aren’t compatible, he falls back on his persersection complex (making him even less attractive) and accuses you of not liking nice guys.
Is it any wonder these men get left for so-called bad boys ?
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Glitch:
I had the same problem myself for many years. Here’s how I fixed it: I walked up to a young woman sitting on a bench* and said, “Hi! I’m practicing talking to strangers.” Yeah, it’s weird, but it serves the purpose of establishing a context and purpose for the conversation. This was possibly the single hardest thing I’ve ever done, but it got easier fairly quickly on subsequent attempts. The responses I got were almost all positive and supportive, and after about fifteen times, it became more or less effortless and I moved on to tougher things.
*This is an oversimplification. I actually walked about twenty yards passed her, paced for a while, sat down, thought about it, thought about it some more, and then went back to her.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Amp,
If we are talking about people who are extremely shy, at the level of psychological disorders like social phobia, avoidant personality disorder, or agoraphobia, I think shyness may equally destroy men and women’s romantic possibilities. At lower levels of shyness than psychological disorders, though, and maybe even including mild social phobia, I think shyness impairs men’s prospects more than it impairs women’s. A moderately shy women is better off in this regard than a moderately shy man. The simple reason is because men are expected to be the initiators. Note that Glitch isn’t describing generalized shyness; he is describing shyness primarily with women he is interested in.
So one of the only ways to get around shyness is when the other person makes the move. Who is more likely to encounter someone who will make a move on them so they don’t have to: men or women? Women, end of story.
Word.
Like you, I can also see the way that I may have made a couple of my female friends feel guilty. It seems that you are being too hard on yourself, however. You say that the way you acted was “wrong.” You also say that you would have been better of if you “could” have made yourself ask, which implies that you couldn’t. Yet if you couldn’t have done so, why do you call your behavior “wrong?” How can you hold yourself responsible for not doing something you were psychologically incapable of?
You seem to be saying that your behavior was “wrong” because it put her in an uncomfortable and unfair double-bind. This implies that you had a responsibility to put your self-esteem on the line in order to mitigate her guilt and confusion. But which is worse? You possibly getting rejected, which could have a lasting effect on your self-esteem and your ability to find relationships in the future (especially if you were at a young age), or her feeling a bit guilty and confused (something she could have dealt with herself by ceasing to hang out with you)?
It seems to me that in the kind of situation you describe, the guy is in the more vulnerable position and in the worse double-bind. If he doesn’t make a move, he pines after her and feeling like a wimp, hurting his self-esteem and ability to find relationships in a potentially lasting manner; if he does make a move, he risks being rejected, which is just another route to a similar negative outcome. (Of course, if the guy is being passive-aggressive, and trying to guilt the woman into being with him, or disparaging her for not doing so, then it’s a totally different scenario.)
It just seems that you are placing an unreasonable expectation on yourself to solve her double-bind, given the limited abilities you had at the time, and the even worse double-bind that you were in. Take this with a grain of salt, of course; I might be overanalyzing what you are saying.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Hugh Ristik: I’m reading your blog now. Interesting stuff. I have read Gilmartin’s work before (I used to own his book on Love Shyness, though I seem to have misplaced it). There’s a good deal of quackery in it, particularly the section on astrology, but his descriptions of love shy men, their upbringings and common experiences were dead on accurate.
Not sure I agree with your take on feminism vis-a-vis bullying. I would like to think everyone is against bullying. I might be inclined to agree that feminism, from what I’ve seen, just doesn’t seem to speak to the issue very much. Then again, that’s hardly irregular. No one seems to give a damn until some poor child goes completely ballistic and shoots up his school. There’s several weeks of, “How could this happen?” from the media, and nothing really gets accomplished. Maybe someday people will actually take concrete steps to address bullying and not mere school safety, but I doubt it. If we accept that people who are routinely bullied are at risk for developing poor social skills and low self esteem, it stands to reason that they are not going to ever attain the kind of power that will vault them into the legislature, where they could make a real difference.
Robert: Thank you. I don’t think anyone ever apologized to me before for that.
Back to the topic of “Nice Guys”:
Amp:
Having gone to Defenestrated’s site and read the full post, I’m not sure I see how this is putting the woman in a double-bind. Sure, the man in this situation becomes off putting and suffers for his inability to approach. But really, the loss here seems to be entirely his. He screws up his friendship and loses out because of it, but based on how Defenestrated’s description of how she perceived the Nice Guy’s behavior it sounds like the typical woman in this instance is probably pretty sick of the Nice Guy anyway, so what’s the loss?
For that matter, it is possible to suffer through an unrequited love for years and not let it show. I’ve managed it. I knew women who I knew very well would never have any sort of romantic inkling for me. We were friends, though, and I judged the benefits of their platonic love and affection to be much greater than the pain of the unrequited feelings. It’s not easy to keep these things bottled up, but it can be done and with time the unrequited love will often fade, leaving the platonic feelings intact. So if the NG can manage it, I’m not sure anyone is being wronged by his conduct.
Not always, though, which is why I confessed my feelings to my ten-year best friend. It just never really went away and got stronger all the time. I knew she would reject me, but I just had to unburden myself before it got worse. Thankfully, our friendship did suffer at all, and we are probably closer now than ever before. In that instance it’s probably better to take a leap in the dark, but the very real possibility that the woman will be uncomfortable and break off the friendship entirely is always out there. I wonder is this perhaps explains the behavior Defenestrated noted. Perhaps these men already concluded that there was no hope of having a romantic relationship with their unrequited love, but couldn’t go on in the same way anymore. They get caught in a viscious cycle of need, desire, fear and self-recrimination and are no longer capable of balancing their unrequited desires with the genuine platonic affection they feel for their friends. At the same time, though, they are incapable of taking the risk of losing their friend. It’s sort of rock-and-hard place setting. A thought, anyway.
Also, speaking generally I wanted to comment on the notion that Nice Guys are misogynists because they feel entitled to love or sex or whathaveyou. I think it’s important to again realize that not all NG’s are the same, and that the meaning and context of the words matter. I admit to sometimes saying, “I’m a decent guy, why doesn’t anyone want me?” What I was really trying to convey was much more complex, along the lines of, “I feel like I have qualities a woman would like and look for in a partner. My male friends are all partnered, and I feel like I am generally similar to them. We are all intelligent, we all can carry a conversation and listen well, we all are educated and love learning more, we all try to help each other out and be generally good, we can all tell a joke and have great senses of humor. I feel like I’m about as physically attractive as they are. I have a decent job. I know how to dress reasonably well and bathe regularly. Why am I the only one, out of all of us, who is all alone?”
Of course, the obvious answer is, “They weren’t fucked from the get-go by the horrid cirumstances of you family life and childhood bullying,” but I was in the midst of a ten-year battle with chronic and severe depression at the time. So in my defense, I really wasn’t capable of thinking straight during those days. I’m feeling pretty good nowadays, though, really.
This comment was written by Glitch the Obscure.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Glitch, I cross-posted with your last post, and we seem to be talking about exactly the same themes.
Glitch said:
Gilmartin talks about this phenomenon in Shyness and Love, the book on Love-shy.com that I linked to in my previous post (sounds like you may have read it already). It’s not like generalized shyness, it’s shyness in informal social situations, especially ones with women one is attracted to.
I’m not aware of studies looking at bullying victims and measuring their later satisfaction in adult life and in romance. I have seen studies in the opposite direction, like Gilmartin’s, which find that men with severe shyness around women tend to have a history of bullying.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Looks like we cross-posted again, Glitch.
Oh, I should clarify what I meant. I do believe that feminists tend to be against bullying, and it’s one area of the victimization of men that they have a relatively good track record of opposing. I was saying that feminism isn’t very helpful to men who are extremely shy with women in romantic situations. Not only does it provide no practical advice (not that I’m necessarily saying it should), it can make them feel guilty for desiring women sexually (oh no! “objectification!”), and it can make them even more afraid of being assertive with women out of fear of sexually harassing or pressuring them.
I’ve found this a good strategy also. My crush on her actually faded after a year or so, and I realized that we were actually better off as friends rather than being in a relationship.
You have said everything else so well that I have little to add.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik (formerly "Aegis").Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 8:17 am
I think feminism would and should be helpful in terms of advocating and moving us towards a society where men don’t have an unequal and unfair pressure to be the initiators, the active partners, the pursuers, and all that. Because of course the flip side of that is that women aren’t supposed to do that, or are supposed to want men to act like that; and if you look at what some of the consequences of that are for women, they are very dire indeed… it may seem like we are generations away from really making that sort of shift, but if you also look back even a handful of decades, change has happened. Those changes and the continuation of that change are a feminist project that people of any gender can benefit from. That doesn’t necessarily address social anxiety and crippling shyness in general… but hopefully we can all agree that the situation would be less awful if it was not being reinforced by ludicrous and antiquated standards about gendered behavior, making people feel like they’re “not real” because they can’t perform to some kind of prescribed role standards.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“pheeno, I disagree. I’ve known women in abusive relationships ( not always of the physically abusive type) and their male partners were never Nice Guys who one day turned into Assholes before the women’s very eyes. ”
I never claimed they changed over night from Nice Guys into Assholes. They were always assholes, but they use the Nice Guy cover.
Oh baby, I LOVE you I’d never treat you like those other guys have. I just have a temper and I love you SO MUCH Im afraind you’ll leave me, I dont mean to be a jerk, please trust me, Im really just a Nice Guy blah blah..
They get you by acting like a Nice Guy. Then gradually you find out (usually too late) that they’re not.
Other people may see signs, but other people arent dating him and are rather irrelevant. Her perception is that he’s a Nice Guy.
A red flag for me is a guy who proclaims being a Nice Guy. If you *are* a true Nice Guy, you dont feel the need to point it out. Its obvious and your actions speak louder than words. A nice guy doesnt bemoan not getting the hot chick ( he realizes there’s more to life than looks) doesnt contemplate being an asshole just to get hot chicks and sure as hell doesnt resent frienship, he recognizes the value in it.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
“I was saying that feminism isn’t very helpful to men who are extremely shy with women in romantic situations. Not only does it provide no practical advice (not that I’m necessarily saying it should), it can make them feel guilty for desiring women sexually (oh no! “objectification!”), and it can make them even more afraid of being assertive with women out of fear of sexually harassing or pressuring them. ”
Thats because feminism isnt a manual for men to learn how to get laid or find relationships. Its about women obtaining true equality as a human being.
It doesnt *make* a man feel anything. His misinterpretation of feminism is his own issue, not ours. If nothing in feminism translates into ” treat us like people” for him and he cant manage to work that into the dating scene, well..sorry.
Assertive doesnt= aggressive.
desire doesnt always mean objectification.
Sounds like guys who have this particular problem just need a dictionary.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Shy men take heart. A woman may come along who appreciates you and give you some encouragement. That’s how I ended up married to my “more reserved” husband. ;-)
This comment was written by lawbitch.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Holly:
I’ll bite. What are they?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Glitch, I’m confused:
What Amp posted is the full post. I have a post up that talks about him putting it up, but it doesn’t really flesh out or add anything except a snarky aside about an early comment. Perhaps you mean you clicked over to read Myca’s side of the conversation. If you haven’t, I recommend doing so (I would just paste his comment, but my browser’s giving me trouble and I’m loathe to open another tab).
I have to say, I’m dismayed to see my remarks taken as a slam against shy men. I’m very shy. I sympathize, empathize, the whole shebang with shy men. This?
Story of my life. What I take issue with is men placing the blame for the outcome of their shyness on the women they’re attracted to. One thing I don’t think I misread (though I did some fine misreading overall, if I do say so myself) in what Myca quoted was the framing of mens’ issues with unassertiveness as a mess that feminism had made. On the contrary, the clearly harmful expectation that men must play the “male initiator” role is exactly the kind of b.s. feminists want to do away with. The individual freedom that leaves us with, though, is an individual responsibility - and has imo been very well addressed above, particularly by Amp at #42 and 43.
The sentiment I’ve run into and that I was responding to wasn’t It’s difficult to get dates if you’re shy, but It’s unfairly difficult for men to get dates in a world where women are allowed to be independent and men are expected to treat women with respect. For example, there’s a huge difference between saying “I can’t get laid because I personally have a hard time asking for what I want” (harmless shyness) and “I can’t get laid because men aren’t supposed to pressure women into sex” (worrisome asshole). I don’t dispute that it requires greater social skills to treat someone like an equal than to simply get to pick a mate who has been conditioned be submissive and will have to economically depend on you [general you], but I think we can all agree that it’s no great loss to have those avenues of ‘courtship’ closed.
In other words, no one’s an asshole just for pining after a friend. Once you start resenting the friend for not liking you back and complaining that it’s because she only likes jerks, then you’re an asshole. [general you, again]
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
pheeno said:
I think Jamila’s point is that plenty of assholes don’t bother with the Nice Guy cover.
I said:
pheeno replied:
I agree: see the bold part of the quote of my previous post.
Reading feminist concepts about being nonsexist, about not objectifying, pressuring, and sexually harassing women has an emotional impact. Men are not machines. This impact is even harder on men who who are shy and socially inexperienced. Unfortunately, feminism provides no boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, because those concepts are so vague and broad. Especially if you have no social skills, you can never be sure that making advances is OK.
You say that this attitude stems from a “misinterpretation” of feminism. If so, it is a misinterpretation that feminism invites. It’s true that the anxiety and lack of social skills of the men leads them to take on more extreme interpretations of feminist views on heterosexuality. Yet those interpretations aren’t necessarily any more extreme than the feminism of some radical feminists. As for feminists who don’t intend those extreme interpretations, they have provided no barrier against them.
Feminists should know by now that shy, anxious, and social inexperienced men exist, who are likely to take more extreme interpretations of feminist views on heterosexuality (these men have been crying out to feminists for decades). Men are not a monolith, and it is the responsibility of feminists to realize that different men will take their messages in different ways.
It’s all well and go to say this, but you still have provided no account of when desire isn’t objectification. But even if you can, the point is that this may not be an account that young men exposed to feminism are receiving.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
But I can attest that during my late teens and early 20s, when I was in fact an arrogant prick pretty much 100% of the time, my romantic success was absurdly good.
Probably because in their teens and early 20s, women are so conditioned to believe that men are predatory assholes that “asshole lite” seems pretty darn attractive. Hey, he didn’t follow me in his car, grab my ass, or try to slip something into my drink–he’s like Mr. Right!
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
defenestrated said:
I see now that you are distinguishing between different motivations that guys calling themselves “nice guys” might have. This distinction wasn’t available in your earlier post, which I think is why Glitch and I felt that you were painting these guys with an overly broad brush.
Myca might not be making that point, but I am (one of my posts is awaiting moderation, though). In some cases, feminism is implicated in cases of men’s fear of asserting themselves.
I agree that this is what feminist theory would suggest. What I wonder is what practical efforts feminists have made to bring this about in a systematic way. There has been a lot of talk by feminists about how women should be able to take on the active, rather than just the passive role, but I don’t see feminists diverting much resources towards this goal. Feminism tends to divert its resources to teaching women how to say “no,” and teaching men how to hear “no,” yet I don’t really see it teaching women how to say “yes.”
Look at date rape seminars, for instance: while they are necessary, they don’t really do anything to subvert the female=passive role. Their main effect is just to make men more passive too. But without women stepping in to pick up the slack, you just have two passive people, which means that nothing happens. Feminism is making men more passive at a faster rate than it is making women more proactive.
One of the best suggestions I’ve heard is that instead of eliminated date rape seminars to fix this problem, we should have both date rape seminars, and seminars in which males and females role-play taking on the role of the opposite sex. I don’t know if this would be practical, but I think it’s the right idea. Yet it’s not a feminist who is advocating it; it’s Warren Farrell.
There is third type of difficulty: “I can’t get laid because I don’t want to pressure a woman into sex, and I can’t stand feeling like there is even the slightest possibility that I’m doing so, but I have no idea how to make advances on a woman in a way that couldn’t be interpreted as pressure.” This is a guy trying his hardest to bring his heterosexuality in accordance with feminist principles. Yet it’s probably going to destroy his chances with women unless he can find a woman who is interested in him and who will make a move on him, and he doesn’t find some way to mess it up.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Wow, two comments in moderation…
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
It’s really like a “tragedy of the Commons” scenario.
Men whose actions mesh with informed feminism are at a disadvantage. This is because women who are feminist in dating are, IMO, a minority. they’re out there. but more rare.
So when a man acts “good” his actions make him less appealing to a majority of women, and more appealing to a minority of women. this penalizes him in dating.
The common sentiment “women like bad boys” may not be true. But, hmm, I think it’s safe to say that there are still a majority of women who expect their date to be paid for (all or most); to get something on valentine’s day that is “feminine” and probably bigger than the present they will give, to have the relationship initially be one of pursuit/pursuer, and so on. Most (not all, just ‘most’) women I have come across in my anecdotal life are not especially feminist. Not to my taste, but there it is….
It’s not that feminism is bad–it’s great! but the Message I have occasionally seen from feminism is “if men acted with more respect they’d have better luck with women” or something like that. I think the whole “nice guy” complaint stems from the fact that this statement is false.
They may have better luck with feminists. (Or not. because of course there’s the whole catch-22 of it that pheeno mentions. For some women, the concept that a man will do something “just” to be more appealing to the woman is, in and of itself, appealing. that sentiment, too, is IMO less likely to be true for feminists.)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
So when a man acts “good” his actions make him less appealing to a majority of women, and more appealing to a minority of women. this penalizes him in dating.
If what you’re looking for is notches on your belt, sure.
If what a man is looking for is an ongoing relationship rather than a quantity of high-maintenance, short-term relationships, isn’t he at an advantage being appealing to a compatible minority?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
[...] Brain and Scarred - check this post out over at Alas. and the comments, surely you must read the comments. [...]
This comment was written by professional pick-up artists run woman-tricking business to help guys get laid « Thinking Girl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I had the same problem myself for many years. Here’s how I fixed it: I walked up to a young woman sitting on a bench* and said, “Hi! I’m practicing talking to strangers.” Yeah, it’s weird…..
…This is an oversimplification. I actually walked about twenty yards passed her, paced for a while, sat down, thought about it, thought about it some more, and then went back to her.
Sounds incredibly frightening and creepy from the point of view of the woman on the bench. Unless, I suppose, it was in a busy place, rather than some isolated park bench somewhere.
As another introvert (hey, we all meet up in the blogosphere!) having to make conversation with some stranger when I’m trying to be by myself is hellish. No reflection, necessarily, on the stranger.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
If her perception is that he’s a nice guy, it’s becuase she isn’t paying heed to the signs. When a guy is apologizing every other day for jerkish behavior, that’s a big red flag that he has a few screws loose.
I think you made a good point when you said the following: “You can also thank all those romance novels for telling little girls that they can *change* the Bad Boy and if she’s just the perfect girlfriend and loves him enough, he will eventually LOVE HER SO MUCH that he will change, just for her. If she doesn’t give up on him, and loves him even though he’s an asshole, he’ll learn about True Love and they’ll have the fairy tale.”
Young girls are fed this fairy tale bs that if they love hard enough and long enough that they’ll be able to change their frog into a prince; thus, ignoring the signs of assholery or thinking that they can change him, the women continue to date the Bad Boy.
And sometimes women are just looking for Mr. Right Now/Mr. Exciting to have some fun with until they get ready for a serious relationship.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Hugh, I’m really curious as to how you think feminism “invites” the misinterpretations you’ve been discussing - which I kind of see as boiling down to: “treat women like people” sounds to some guys like “figure out different codes to enter on the woman-bot,” and they want the freaking code. How should The Feminists know what some dude’s love interest wants him to do to win her affection? She’s an individual with individual needs and desires, which ideally would factor into the guy’s interest.
Do you think that this conversation has never happened before and is original to this thread? The message has long been out there that feminists expect men to regard women as equals, not to be perfectly smooth in all romantic attempts; making sure that every last man on earth has heard the good news isn’t feminism’s job. After a certain point (decades, say), the ignorance is hard not to see as willful, especially on a cultural level.
Feminism does and has done plenty to help women to be more assertive. It’s true that feminists don’t spend a lot of time discussing the particulars of “how to ask a guy for a date or sex,” because it’s assumed that we covered that in Knowing What You Want 101 and the upper-level Speaking Up for Yourself courses (besides, that would be stealing Cosmo’s market). To complain that feminism as a movement doesn’t focus enough energy on how to those skills to date and sleep with men strikes me as, well, funny.
How is this different from “I can’t get laid because I don’t know how to ask for what I want,” aside from providing a little background? It could just as easily be “I can’t get laid because I don’t want to creep women out with my second nose, but I have no idea how to make advances on a woman in such a way that she couldn’t see my second nose” [ok, not just as easily]. That a guy has a reason for not knowing how to assert himself doesn’t make it any less his responsibility to find a way of doing so. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not feminism’s fault.
**It takes me a ridiculous amount of time right now to form even that coherent and complete of a comment, and I’m sure that an undrugged me would have said more and/or said it better. Slack should be cut to me. Hell, for all I know I just seamlessly solved all the riddles of the universe, but I probably wouldn’t be able to tell by reading back through.**
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Holly said,
I agree. Very strongly. In my experience, guys who swoop in like that (especially if they offer no conversation starter, since it’s apparently enough that you’re female and you’re there) usually don’t take very kindly to “I’d rather be by myself,” and insist that you’re personally insulting them by saying so.
Though honestly, unless as Holly says it’s somewhere busy, if the guy has been hanging around for a while, pacing and contemplating talking to me - we have eyes and aren’t stupid - I would probably be too scared for my safety to risk finding out what he’s like when he’s feeling insulted. I’d feel stuck playing along until I found a way to get away (or the bus comes, since this sort of thing happens to me most often at bus stops, where I’m ‘conveniently’ a relatively captive audience).
On the upside, though, the guy would get his “positive and supportive” response.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
See? G’night, tubes.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 12:29 am
For the record, it was in a fairly busy place, in broad daylight, and I was outside her field of vision while contemplating. I really don’t need to be told any of this, as I generally tend to err on the side of worrying far too much about how others will interpret my actions. So it’s probably a good thing we didn’t have this conversation before I tried it.
And I realize that since I’m atypical in many other ways, I may well be atypical in this way as well, but I’ve never been insulted, angered, or anything but disappointed by honest, explicit rejection (though I have a pretty low opinion of women who stop returning phone calls or e-mails with no explanation). If a woman doesn’t want me, it’s unfortunate, but I don’t see that there’s any reason to be offended.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Brandon - The busy location really does make a difference, so I’m glad you cleared that up.
Good for you - seriously - but no one’s going to know that until after they’ve rejected you. Maybe you’ll be insulted, maybe you won’t. Maybe you’re the kind of guy who’ll get violent, maybe you’re not. Hence the whole idea of approaching women in a non-pressuring way - i.e. making sure the situation and approach are such that the woman knows that “no” is a safe and acceptable answer - that’s apparently so problematic for some guys.
Yeah, yeah, I already said I was going to bed. I’ve been watching many consecutive episodes of the Simpsons. Now I’m going to bed.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:30 am
defenestrated said:
I have always wanted to do the right thing. My mother taught me to respect women, and I have always taken this seriously. When I was younger, I wanted to respect women in the ways that feminists said. I did my best to follow feminist directives to not objectify, sexually harass, and pressure women. For instance, is it sexual harassment or objectification to tell a girl, “by the way, I think you are really cute”? Am I putting her in the role of an object that is subordinate to me? Is it pressuring to say “hey, we should walk downtown and get some food after school…”? Am I imposing my idea of what I think we “should” do on her? Is it sexual harassment to say, “here, come gimme a hug”? I didn’t know the answers to these questions. But I didn’t want to do the wrong thing and disrespect women, so I played it safe and behaved as conservatively as possible.
The result was that I acted like a complete eunuch, and I treated women like frail porcelain statues. I did such a good job of not pressuring women that I never went on a date, and never kissed a woman.
Was I misinterpreting feminism? It’s clear that I didn’t interpret feminist messages in a way that most feminists probably intend. Yet did I interpret the messages I received in a completely unreasonable manner? I don’t think so. Feminists want men to question their behavior with women from a moral standpoint. This mandate is one of the main goals of feminism, no? Well, I questioned my actions towards women; I questioned them so well that action became almost impossible.
I said that feminists invite misinterpretation of their directives to men, because those directives are extremely vague and sweeping, making it impossible for men (especially those lacking in social skills) to know the boundary between acceptable or unacceptable behavior in the feminist view. Feminists tell men not to objectify, sexually harass, or pressure women, but they don’t provide a clear account of exactly what behaviors are objectification, sexual harassment, or pressure, and which are not. Feminists don’t say “telling a girl she has a hot ass is objectification, but telling a girl she is cute is OK,” they just say “don’t objectify women,” which is somewhat like saying “don’t sin.”
It is the responsibility of feminists to explain what they believe is and isn’t objectification, sexual harassment, and pressure. It is not the responsibility of shy, socially inexperienced and impressionable young men to mind-read what feminists consider the boundaries of those terms to be.
When feminists give men urgent but vague rules about how to behave, some of these men are going to go overboard in following those rules, making it impossible for them to get anywhere with women. If feminists are going to give men rules, and insist on not qualifying these rules, feminism is going to harm some of these men. Maybe it can argued that messing up a few shy guys is a small price to pay in getting the message out that men shouldn’t objectify, sexually harass, or pressure women, etc.; yet if feminists are arguing this, they should be honest about it, and stop trying to pretend that their approach doesn’t hold the risk of harming lots of men.
Ironically, the men who are the most conscientious about following feminism’s dictates are most likely to have their romantic lives impaired, like mine was. Even worse, when you bring this up to feminists, they often blame you, when all you were trying to do was follow what they were telling you. You get accused of believing that you are entitled to sex with women, or of viewing women as robots that just need to be fed the right code. Or you get accused of requiring feminists to give you concrete and detailed instructions of how to behave.
Doing my best to follow feminism’s directives contributed to me being lonely and rejected by women for an extended period of time. To me, this felt like a betrayal. Thanks to these experiences, and other reasons, I have become a critic of feminism. If feminists are fine with impairing the relationships of some of the men most likely to support their cause, in a way that can result in those men later becoming alienated from feminism, then they should keep doing what they are doing.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:57 am
I think ‘nice’ is the first word they teach aspiring writers not to use. The word is pinballing here to mean whatever anyone needs it to mean to make their own arguments work. (Certainly, I don’t know what ‘adventuresome’ is supposed to mean, nor how you measure it in someone.) Niceness is assumed to mean passive, shy, and unconfident, but it doesn’t have to. The question I’m trying to ask is, is there something inherent about being an asshole that some women find attractive? Or is it just that being an asshole comes commonly packaged with confidence and boldness? Now, nemo’s post #23 has the faint whiff of urban legend about it, but it strikes me as plausible and probably does so to most of you as well. If it’s true, then there’s something inherent about violent and brutish behaviour that’s seen as attractive and the entire discussion that assumes a nice/passive and jerk/assertive polarity is incomplete. The romance novel mentality mentioned by pheeno perhaps doesn’t cause it, in my view, but perhaps conditions women to tolerate more of it before they realize that it’s not worth it.
We should perhaps generalize and consider nice guys and gals both, and the difficulties that they both face. Nice guys shoulder the burden of having to be the initiator, but nice girls feel themselves more restricted by a rigid pecking order based on attractiveness. (Let’s face it, all else being equal, what’s being assumed here ‘nice guys/girls’ are those whose credentials in other areas are otherwise lacking.) A nice guy who puts in enough time and effort with a girl is expected to get payoff, while a nice girl gets no reprieve anytime anywhere if she doesn’t have the goods. Or she does, but only if it involves an extreme makeover that involves a crooked doctor from Florida carving your face up with garden tools. Girls, after a certain point, are expected to put out when he’s done enough, or else they’re stone cold bitches. For guys, if she’s not at least a 6.5 out of 10, hey, we understand.
I don’t think anyone’s opposed to gender equality, at least here. The question is, should it be achieved by allowing women to be as shallow as men are allowed to be with equal impunity? Or by setting expectations of men that are more in line with what’s expected of women? The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but I’m leaning toward the latter. I’m not just leaning, I’m reclining.
“A nice guy doesnt bemoan not getting the hot chick ( he realizes there’s more to life than looks) doesnt contemplate being an asshole just to get hot chicks and sure as hell doesnt resent frienship, he recognizes the value in it.”
Oh, come off it. ;) That seems to be an impossibly high standard. Like the average nice girl considered fat and unattractive doesn’t secretly dream of the hawt boi, or consider all sorts of ill-advised methods, some of them harmful to more than just herself, to get a leg up on the game? I realize the distinction is one of degree - it all is. When does guilty fantasy become contemplation? What’s niceness and what’s actual kindness? For that matter, how do you even differentiate the two in real life, without the benefit of hindsight? These sorts of words belie an inability to sympathize with guys like Hugh and Glitch. Having been through an unfortunately long awkward phase myself, that is one area of empathy where I am not lacking.
Some advice I can give you guys to get out of your funk is, for starters, to start working out. It did wonders to my self-esteem. Also, engage in more activities where charisma and gutsiness are requirements one and two. Have you considered volunteering in soliciting donations? Generally, the more creative and off-the-script you have to be, the better.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 6:36 am
I dunno if I agree with that. I lean towards the “you never know” theory. the woman who i happen to be madly in love with, and married to for almost ten years…. well, at the time I started dating her i didn’t see it being more than a fling. her predecessor and I, OTOH, were “in love”; thank god we didn’t get married. The more folks you date (within reason), the greater your chances of meeting someone with whom you an have a good, ongoing, relationship.
Hugh, you’re “getting accused” of making the demand because you just made the demand.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Probably because at root you still see women as other than men. Otherwise you would not stumble over the “am I objectifying her if I tell her she’s attractive.”
I’m so sick of men whining about how feminism castrates them. How in the hell can someone confuse objectification with expressing interest? Is the objectification of women so socialized into men that they can’t even parse their own emotional reaction to specific women from their encultured response to women as a whole?
I have dated and slept with many, many women and have never had this disconnect between who I am, how I wish to be treated, and treating another woman in the same light. I’ve never felt the need to objectify another woman, ever. Which of course would require me to objectify myself, so I guess I have a leg up on the dudes. But seriously. How do you men envision having an adult relationship with a woman when you can’t excise the objectification and othering from your view of who and what women are?
And why the whining from men under 30 about not dating? Why is this being misplaced onto women? Christ, do we have to do everything for you?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 8:43 am
That’s not true. Someone can be very intelligent and still be socially incompetent. Actually, I’d hazard a guess that very intelligent people are more likely than average to be socially incompetent, because our minds often work differently from normal people’s.
So check your sociotypical privilege at the door, please.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 8:59 am
For instance, is it sexual harassment or objectification to tell a girl, “by the way, I think you are really cute”? Am I putting her in the role of an object that is subordinate to me? Is it pressuring to say “hey, we should walk downtown and get some food after school…”? Am I imposing my idea of what I think we “should” do on her? Is it sexual harassment to say, “here, come gimme a hug”?
Context is everything. If you meet a woman in a bar (hopefully you won’t meet any girls there, but underage sneaking in does happen), chat with her for a while, and then say “by the way, I think you’re really cute” that means something different than if you say the same thing to a junior high school girl who is a student of yours and whom you have met to discuss what to do about her poor grades. Likewise, “Hey, we should walk downtown and get some food after school” means something different depending on if you’re both teachers or both students or if one of you is a teacher, the other a student (or one the principle and the other a teacher). It also means something different if you’ve said the same thing 13,204X before and always been told “get lost” or if the girl you’re talking to is a stranger versus if the girl in question is a friend who you often hang out with. That goes even moreso for “give me a hug”. If you say that to a girl who is a close friend or romantic partner or even a reasonably friendly acquaintance who is having a hard day and is into touchy-feely things, it is different from if the girl is a stranger, someone who has rejected you in the past (and showed no signs of reconsidering), or someone who is is dependent on you in some way.
This is, of course, not the official Feminist(TM) position or anything other than my idea of what is and what isn’t acceptable. But the general rule, IMHO, is look at the situation, evaluate whether the person is receptive to you or not, and absolutely avoid anything that could be construed as a sexual advance when the person is in a position such that you have power over him or her. When in doubt, no one will fault you for being a little more distant than necessary. In the end, I don’t think that this issue is really about “feminism” so much as not putting people in an uncomfortable position–ie where they feel pressured to get closer than they want to or endangered.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“If her perception is that he’s a nice guy, it’s becuase she isn’t paying heed to the signs. When a guy is apologizing every other day for jerkish behavior, that’s a big red flag that he has a few screws loose. ”
That is a perfect example of women being told the wrong things to look for, that they should always be polite and forgive, never make anyone feel bad ect. Its not her failure to see the signs, its his success at manipulating her into dismissing them.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I think that something that’s worth discussing here is that for many people, power is erotic. I know it is for me. I exclusively date strong, smart, self-reliant women.
It’s because of feminism that so many more women are free to be strong, smart, and self-reliant without stigma, and from both a self-actualization standpoint, a mental/emotional/social health standpoint, and a ‘Myca’s dating life’ standpoint, that’s a really good thing.
Part of the difficulty, though, is that many men who embrace feminist principles have seen how male power has historically been abused, and, rather than focusing on ways to be powerful without being abusive, tend to be very wary of any sort of expression of power at all. I think that’s what Sharon’s original essay was about.
Do I think this is feminism’s fault? Well, not really but sort of. Kinda. I think feminist thought has exacerbated the problem in some ways, but I also think that it will provide the ultimate solution, a world in which we’re all able to have power without abuse. I think what we’ve got now is a temporary state of affairs, and possibly a necessary one.
Contrary to many of the dismissive comments here, though, it’s not always clear what’s ‘oppression’ and what’s not. It’s not always clear what’s offensive and what’s not. Discard your notions about entitled men for a moment, and put yourself in the person of a 17 year old kid who really really likes a female friend of his. He wants a romantic relationship, but he also likes her as a friend. Now read what Pheeno wrote in post #29. What the hell does he do? Express interest? He doesn’t want her to hear that he considers her friendship a pile of crap, and he doesn’t, but at the same time, he likes her as more than a friend . . . and that’s not, in itself, a bad thing.
Also, of course, it doesn’t help that ‘let’s be friends’ has become the stereotypical blow-off line, because that devalues friendship. It makes friendship the consolation prize.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Oh, and also, I agree completely about the difference between actual nice guys and self-proclaimed “NICE GUYS.”
And I wanted to add real quickly that I think it’s important to realize that the overwhelming majority of the time that you hear a guy complain about how ‘women only date jerks’, it’s not an argument or a philosophy or a sociological analysis, it’s a rant.
It’s a rant in the same way that I hear women complain about how ‘guys only want to date bimbos with big boobs’ is a rant. That is, it’s not true, but the frustration is understandable, and when I hear that, I don’t immediately assume that the woman ranting is an overentitled twit who feels like she’s got a right to affection whether or not she’s any fun to be around . . . I assume she’s just had a painful experience, and she’s blowing off steam.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:55 am
“That seems to be an impossibly high standard. Like the average nice girl considered fat and unattractive doesn’t secretly dream of the hawt boi, or consider all sorts of ill-advised methods, some of them harmful to more than just herself, to get a leg up on the game? ”
Doesnt seem to be, Ive met many men who’ve met and exceeded that standard.
There seems to be a distinct lack of articles, cliches, catch phrases ect about those nice girls never getting a guy and it being the GUYS fault. Those girls tend to internalize it, view it as their fault (usually because they’re overweight or dont fit some beauty standard) and give up, settling for any guy who so much as looks their way. She usually finds an asshole, because he sees an easy to control target.
Those girls arent whining about it. They’re giving themselves eating disorders.
Do you see the difference here in who nice girls blame?
Who gets the eating disorders? Girls. Who gets the blame when a guy cant get a date? Girls. Who’s the bitch? Girls. Who has some fem bot code to be cracked? Girls.
I dont know about you, but I have a problem with this.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“Now read what Pheeno wrote in post #29. What the hell does he do? Express interest? He doesn’t want her to hear that he considers her friendship a pile of crap, and he doesn’t, but at the same time, he likes her as more than a friend . . . and that’s not, in itself, a bad thing.”
Now go back and read what I wrote and see where they were PISSED at me because they wanted more. Not just wistfully hoping and well sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesnt. They *resented* just being my friend.
Thats what makes my friendship just a pile of crap to them.
They wanted pussy, and the person attached to it was purposely holding out and just giving them the person and not the all important pussy.
If *thats* how that poor little 17 year old sees it I have an idea of what he can do.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hugh tried to discuss the subject reasonably, and he got called stupid. Multiple times.
Any wonder why he prefers pickup to engaging with feminists for dating?
Do feminists have this sort of hostility towards the obesities that men aren’t sexually attracted to? Women who complain that they get called dude?
This comment was written by Rob.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Right, I see what you’re saying.
What I’m saying is that some of that is because we treat ‘let’s just be friends’ as a brush-off, and some of it is probably because, well, unfulfilled longing can turn to resentment, because as you watch your friend (whom you’re in love with ) go through bad relationship after bad relationship, you keep thinking “Jeez, I would never treat you like that.”
You ever hear Ani’s “Untouchable Face”? It’s like that. She doesn’t say “fuck you’ because she’s pissed off, she says ‘fuck you’ because it hurts.
Anyway, the point is, speaking as someone who once was a 17 year old boy, there’s a real fear at that age that expressing romantic interest will be seen as a betrayal of the friendship . . . that expressing romantic interest will be seen as, “I just want pussy, and don’t care about the person attached,” which was, for me, untrue.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:24 am
I don’t know, Bean, I don’t think that asking ‘How can men express both power and romantic interest so as to not be oppressive or off-putting to women’ is a question utterly unrelated to feminism.
YMMV, of course.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Myca: Power isn’t erotic. You have eroticized power. Lots of folks do.
Men can be both powerful and romantic. No big deal. It’s when dominance that is based on gendered differences gets confused with power that feminists get critical.
Personally, I don’t see the relevance of a 17-year-old’s failed romance to feminism, but that’s just me.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Is it sexual harassment to say, “here, come gimme a hug”? I didn’t know the answers to these questions.
You should. As with all human interactions, they depend on context. Playfully telling your wife “gimme a hug” when you’re curled up watching TV is very different than saying the same thing to your secretary. Telling a fellow student in your 300-person undergrad class “I think you’re cute” in the hopes that she’ll ask you out on a date is probably fine; saying “I think you’re cute” to your boss in the middle of a shape-up-or-ship-out lecture pretty obviously isn’t.
Of course it’s not always 100% clear. Our species hasn’t evolved mind-reading. But the solution to “how can I be assertive without being an ass?” is not to complain that feminists are big meanies, or that it’s women’s problem if it doesn’t always turn out perfectly.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Right! And that’s why I never said that.
I what I said was that this was a temporary and possibly necessary state of affairs.
Put another way, under the patriarchy, there’s a certain paradigm (or several paradigms) for male/female relationships. Under feminism, there’s another (or many other). I think part of what’s happening here has to do with the confusion that accompanies a shift from one to the other.
In that sense, feminism is partially the ’cause’ but it’s not a bad thing. The medicine tastes bad, but you need it. The scab will itch as it heals. That’s what I’m talking about.
The new paradigm is healthy, the old one was not. The shift is necessary. The confusion may be inevitable, but it’s what needs to happen.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Also, of course, it doesn’t help that ‘let’s be friends’ has become the stereotypical blow-off line, because that devalues friendship
That line, per se, certainly, but there are other ways of expressing the concept. How do you think that the hypothetical 17 year old in question would react if his friend said, “No. I value you as a friend but I’m not attracted to you/ready to have a relationship/interested in going there with you.”? At that point, does he say, “Ok. I won’t bring it up again. If you change your mind please feel free to bring it up to me.” and continue to be her friend? Or drop the friendship, whether out of embarrassment or because he didn’t get what he really wanted out of it? If the latter, then he should probably be prepared for her to feel hurt and betrayed by him.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Agreed.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Why should she feel betrayed? Friendships change. Motivations change.
Certainly, I have fallen in love with friends in the past. Some affections were returned, some not. Of the latter, some friendships were too odd following the proposal/rejection, some weren’t. I’m still friends with quite a few of my high school friends/crushes, but not all.
Pheeno: That someone didn’t want to be friends with you after you said no to their dating proposal doesn’t mean they didn’t like you as a friend at first, or even when they got romantic, or even when you said no.
Because that’s not the only ball in the game, ya? Folks can have both positive and negative feelings, towards the same person, at the same time. I can be angry at, or hurt by, or rejected by, a friend. And even though I may still value their friendship, if those negative feelings are big enough then the friendship ends.
It’s not a one way street, is all. People don’t just “feel” hurt and betrayed, they usually are also made to feel hurt and betrayed. Choosing two different examples from my own high school life: One friend, when I confessed a new-found crush on her, was understanding but not interested. I was disappointed; she was polite; we’re still friends 20 years later.
The other friend, when i did the same, got odd and distant. perhaps she–like you, apparently–believed in the narrative that one could only be friends or have a crush, not both. Perhaps she thought my friendship earlier was “fake” (it wasn’t). But for whatever reason, her reaction was, let’s just say, not as nice. We weren’t friends for long thereafter. Perhaps she felt betrayed because she thought my friendship was fake. I recall that I felt betrayed, because she was so willing to believe that about me merely because I had the bad luck to develop a crush on her (bad taste, it seems…)
Those results were different because of the INTERACTION BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES, not because an eevul man (me, in this case) ruined the friendship. isn’t that obvious?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
“What I’m saying is that some of that is because we treat ‘let’s just be friends’ as a brush-off, and some of it is probably because, well, unfulfilled longing can turn to resentment, because as you watch your friend (whom you’re in love with ) go through bad relationship after bad relationship, you keep thinking “Jeez, I would never treat you like that.””
But again, your treating/believing friendship is a blow off isnt *my* issue. Its yours. You’re applying your ideas of what it means to my motivation, without even asking. You’ve assumed its a brush off and run with it.
Who’s fault is that? Hers or his?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Maybe the answer is that it’s complicated.
Ending a friendship because she did not reciprocate your romantic interest could mean that you’re a bastard who just pretended to be friends because you wanted pussy. It could also mean that spending time hanging out with someone you really want to be with romantically is just too much to handle.
Conversely,
Ending a friendship because he expressed interest you did not reciprocate could mean that you’re a selfish bitch who considers it offensive that a friend might want to go out with you. It could also mean that spending time hanging out with someone you know is pining for you is just too much to handle.
After an unsucessful attempt to take a friendship into romantic territory, in my experience, it’s the pursued as often as the pursuer who ends the friendship.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Well, no, maybe it’s a brush-off. I guarantee you that the sort of person who would use that as a brush off also wouldn’t say “heck yeah, it’s a brush-off.”
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Why should she feel betrayed?
As Myca said, because she may feel that the friendship was a pretense.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Myca, do you notice a certain lack-of-parallel here?
What if she considers it offensive that her friend wants to go out with her because (as we’ve been talking about), she feels like the guy has been pretending to be friends?
There is no corresponding, The guy pretends to be friends because he feels like she’s a selfish bitch. Why are the standards for bastard and bitch so very different?
Oh wait, that’s the whole point of gendered insults.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Defenestrated, you’re being unfair.
My point is that there are both men and women who will end a friendship after a romantic advance, and some of the time it’s for perfectly good reasons. Some of the time it’s not.
‘Whether or not it’s reasonable to end a friendship’ does not depend on your gender. ‘Whether or not it’s reasonable to end a friendship’ also doesn’t depend on whether you’re the pursuer or the pursued.
Heck, if you would like something more directly parallel, how about:
Look, I DON”T THINK THAT WOMEN ARE THE BAD GUYS. What I’m saying is that in terms of ‘friendships ended after a romantic advance’, they’re not always the good guys either.
Motivations are complicated.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I had a nice response to Myca, but it took so long to compose that I blew it off because I was sure things had moved right along. Now it’s taken forever long again, but I’ve decided to just click “Submit” and get on with life …
On the subject of “Let’s Be Friends(tm)”, there are a lot of reasons that “Let’s Be Friends(tm)” can be better than “Take A Hike”. One is that the reason a relationship is a bad idea might be a friendship-killer. I’m increasingly unwilling to date outside my religion and social class. Yet, I have friends, including friends who’ve expressed an interest in dating me, who aren’t in my social class and don’t share my religion. If someone pushes for a reason, which happens when “Let’s Be Friends(tm)” is used to put off or end a relationship, I’m not sure I want to tell them why because that same pair of reasons has nothing to do with friendships.
And while I respect Myca’s comment that it can be hard to spend just-friends time around someone you’re attracted to, I think that’s more a reflection of the person’s belief that they really know “what’s best”, which was something I mentioned in my now-discarded post — I want my friends to have good relationships, even if they aren’t with me, and knowing how I decide between friends and lovers, I know that other people very likely go through the same mental calculus.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Ah, but isn’t that the gift of ageing! At a certain point in youth, one feels like one will die unrequited.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
[...] Comment by HughRistik | April 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm | Quote [...]
This comment was written by Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“The other friend, when i did the same, got odd and distant. perhaps she–like you, apparently–believed in the narrative that one could only be friends or have a crush, not both. Perhaps she thought my friendship earlier was “fake” (it wasn’t). But for whatever reason, her reaction was, let’s just say, not as nice. We weren’t friends for long thereafter. ”
Are any of you actually reading what I wrote?
I had no clue they felt anything beyond friendship until *years* later when they bitterly told me how much they resented just being friends with me.
Not ONE of them asked me out, hinted at feelings deeper than friendship or bothered to bring it up. They were pissed that I didnt read their damn minds and they were pissed that I JUST offered them friendship.
2 of them, I might have gone out with. 1 absolutely not, because I saw how he was with girlfriends and he was too emotional and clingy. Another, we would have killed each other, we were far too alike. But I never even got the opportunity to accept or deny anything.
So for that *IM* the bitch in their eyes? Fuck em.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Q Grrl writes:
Heh.
Nope, I’ve been this way most of my dating life. I moved too often up until I was 27 to treat friends like they were disposable. People who don’t want their ex’s to be happy either don’t care about their friends or never thought of the person as a friend.
Never underestimate how not having the same zip code for more than a few years at a time alters ones perspective on friends. I have an ex-lover I’ve been friends with for 33 years or so now. I’ve known her through 2 divorces, 2 new husbands, a couple of pregnancies, and all sorts of things. I have another ex-lover I’ve been friends with, though not as close, for 25 years now.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Myca, I should have been clearer that I wasn’t disagreeing with your larger points. That imbalance just struck me, partly in its contrast to your overall sentiment (do you see me calling all these guys on individual semantics?).
What I was trying to get at is that - since a lot of the issues at hand seem to come from underlying, tacitly and/or unconsciously expected gender roles - it’s worthwhile to examine our perhaps less-than-thought-out ideas about what men and women are supposed to do.
My point was that in your compromise explanation combining the perspectives of the one who’s interested with the one who doesn’t reciprocate - a combination I support making, since things can be complicated - the lines you drew were unfair. The guy is only a bastard if the woman is totally misreading his motives. The woman is a selfish bitch because of how she feels, regardless of why she finds the interest or its expression offensive.
It may seem like quibbling to you, but you’re not the one being forced into the role of selfish bitch.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
pheeno:
Short answer: no.
(I mean, some of us are, but.)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I see your objection, and I actually don’t disagree.
I was originally going to use the example I used in post #105, wherein the ‘pursued’ plays on and exploits the feelings of the ‘pursuer’, but I anticipated many posts objecting to how I was demonizing women as evil and manipulative, so I toned it down.
I’m feeling a little piled on here, especially because I don’t really think that the stuff I’m saying is all that far out, so I’m going to bow out for a bit.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
[...] Whoosh! Nice Guys! [...]
This comment was written by Turbulence « Feline Formal Shorts.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I don’t know if you’re still reading this, Glitch, but have you tried any online dating sites? Maybe it would be easier for you if you could get to “know” someone and practice flirting without the pressure of face-to-face contact. Also, the women on those sites are obviously interested in meeting someone, so you might not have to worry about being slotted into the “friend” box as much.
I used to be painfully shy myself, so I really do empathize with men who just can’t approach women without the friendship first. As a dating strategy though, it’s just terrible.
I think some of the problem with shy men is that they may not be as adept at reading social cues; shy people spend too much time in their own heads, instead of in the moment, and that makes it harder to accurately judge other people.
This comment was written by Snowe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
[...] Over on Alas there’s been a discussion about “Nice Guys”, in which Hugh, as well as taking part, has picked up on his two most recent posts. “Nice guys”, so the perception is, “finish last” with women. [...]
This comment was written by Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
My experience has been that, for men, this is an exercise in futility, for a number of reasons:
1. The sex ratios are skewed against men.
2. Many men have adopted a strategy of spamming as many women as possible, which means that any moderately attractive woman will get more mail than she can reasonably be expected to read. The result is that there’s a good chance that the mail you send won’t be read.
3. A lot of the women on these sites aren’t serious. They put the ads up on a lark and then forget about them, or only sporadically check their mail.
4. And a lot of them are just plain rude. I’ve had several women solicit my attention and then just ignore me when I wrote back, and even more who responded positively to my initial mail and failed to respond at all to subsequent mails. In fact, this is by far the most common way they tell you they’ve lost interest, so much so that I got in the habit of writing a thank you note to every woman who had the decency to reject me explicitly.
And I’m a fairly good catch, so it’s not as though I ran into these problems because I’m just undesirable. There is an important caveat here: I was dealing mostly with women in their early ’20s. Older women may behave somewhat differently.
Yeah, you’d think that, wouldn’t you?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Oh, well. There goes my idea. :( I actually have no idea how to meet people in the “real” world; all of my friends are marrying/seriously dating the people we were with in college.
This comment was written by Snowe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
“Doesnt seem to be, Ive met many men who’ve met and exceeded that standard.”
Perhaps it wouldn’t seem as so if you had read the rest of the paragraph, where I made some significant qualifications to my initial statement. Obviously, a ‘nice guy’ who, say, focuses all his much vaunted niceness only on the girls he deems attractive, isn’t actually nice. But is a guy not nice if he gives any sort of special attention to the girls he thinks are attractive? Is he not nice if he ever bemoans his social situation at any time? My main problem with your initial statements is that it wants to define away the opposition. Girls want niceness, and any guy who doesn’t agree with that statement must by definition be not nice. This seems to skirting very close to saying that women’s actions and preferences should always be beyond reproach.
Look, a lot of us here have been 17-year old boys before, and like Myca pointed out, most of the ‘nice guy’ rants are just frustrated young men blowing off steam. Some may even have something to them, who knows? The point is, the sexism or niceness of these guys should be something that should be evaluated after the fact, not something that must be there or not there by definition.
“There seems to be a distinct lack of articles, cliches, catch phrases ect about those nice girls never getting a guy and it being the GUYS fault.”
Yes, that’s a problem, and that was precisely what I was railing against. In many cases it should be seen as the guy’s fault. Nice girls have it worse than nice guys, who at least get the benefit of token sympathies every now and then. Nice girls are taught, sometimes even by their own friends, to internalize the blame for being so irredeemably unattractive. (Their friends, of course, are victims of the same game in their own right.) At the very least, we all should talk of nice girls in the same breath we talk about nice guys, though there are still many people who believe that girls not conventionally attractive DESERVE to be given less consideration and will actually be quite offended if things start moving in the other direction. I mean, don’t get me wrong, we the Politically Correct will execute them en masse by around 2030 pacific standard time, but it’s such a ludicrous place to make their stand, no? Remember Dove’s delightfully hypocritical but brownie-points-for-trying ‘Real Beauty’ campaign? I can attest that I know several people who were actually offended by it.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Almost everyone I know who’s dated using online sites has had positive experiences. I’m sure there are many anecdotes out there; they aren’t all BB’s.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
My wife and I met and largely courted online. It seems to have worked OK.
Of course, we’re Republicans. So you have to factor that in.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:04 am
“we’re Republicans. So you have to factor that in.”
Lessee. Common affinity for the color red working in favor… possibility of being crushed by elephants on first date working against…
Date alert level: red hot!
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Date alert level: red hot!
When I explained how a MSA combined with savvy 401(k) allocations could reduce our joint taxable income to $0, meaning more money for the diamond budget, she was mine.
Her realization that this meant inevitable cuts in the welfare state, additional physical suffering for poor people, and purse-lipped disapproval from welfare afficionados of the sort who always advocate high taxation for the rich but never earn more than $39,999 in a year - that just made it hot.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Bean, with all due respect, it’s enough to say that Brandon’s advice was bad, or doesn’t reflect the experience of the people you know. Please avoid making personal attacks on other posters on “Alas.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Robert writes:
Oh, do me, Baby, do me!
Now, if I could find someone who understands what you just wrote, I think I’d fall head over heels madly in love on the first date.
When I was a junior in high school there were three parts of the newspaper I paid attention to — world news, the financial pages, and which horses were racing. We don’t have much by way of horse racing here, which is a shame, because international affairs are a complete disaster these days.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Oh, do me, Baby, do me!
Sorry, sweet thing. These tax-defyin’ fingers already have a ring on ‘em.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I thought so. but then I read it again–and I misread. Sorry.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 8:58 am
[...] This echos a point made several times in the Alas thread, for example, by bean: Frankly, I think it should be painfully obvious the distinction between genuine nice guys and the Nice Guys(TM) that are discussed here. The most profound difference between the two is that the former don’t go around “bragging” about being nice guys; nor do they think that the purpose of being a nice guy is to get laid. They are actually nice because they honestly and sincerely that all people (even women) deserve to be treated kindly, with respect, and as equal humans. [...]
This comment was written by Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Brandon,
With due respect, I have trouble getting over this line:
I’m not trying to insult whatever qualities you’re referring to, because I don’t know what they are and I haven’t met you and I wouldn’t know, but I don’t trust anyone’s self-report on this. The creeps over at Hugo’s, for instance, often complain that they’re great catches because they have sooooooooo much money.
Also, whatever the problem is, if you are not getting the dates you want, it indicates that in that situation — this being not generalizable to other situations –, to those women, you are not a good catch.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:32 am
In fact, your willingness to say that you’re a good catch in the specific context of not being able to get dates from women, to imply therefore that the women are unreasonable, rude, and flighty (just there for a lark) — seems to me exactly what this thread is about.
You don’t get to decide what women should want, and then dictate to them that they’re doing something wrong for not wanting it.
Or, rather, feel free to do those things, but be aware that you look a bit silly while doing it.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I don’t know what Brandon intended with his comment but my interpretation was that his lack of success was specific to online dating. I also didn’t pick up any animosity (towards women or otherwise). He also had some explanation of why it was the way it was that didn’t place any blame on women. His first three explanations add up to a decent justification for the 4th . I have to agree that silence is a bad way to tell someone that the relationship’s over.
But I could be wrong so go ahead and bash him if you like.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
[...] *laughs* Aye, Kat. It’s a dangerous and slightly annoying path. Especially since you run the risk of falling into the Nice Guy/Girl trap… I’m their friend and I love them, so why don’t they love meeeeee? [...]
This comment was written by The Pretty, Pretty Princess and Her Plain, but Smart Sidekick « Tiny Cat Pants.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“But I could be wrong so go ahead and bash him if you like. ”
A calm explanation that his comments reflect bias is bashing?
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
mandolin, that’s passive-aggressive-speak for “If you disagree with me, you’re unfairly bashing Brandon.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Yeah, I was replying with passive-aggressive speak for, “You think I didn’t notice that you were trying to poison the well by implying that I’m unreasonable and overemotional, but I did, and I can do wide-eyed innocence better than you can.” ;-)
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
The bashing comment was directed more at Bean, who accused him of hating women.
Sorry if I colored with too broad of a brush.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Robert,
I’m thinking the difference had a whole lot more to do with your age and the age of the women in question, than anything else. Your goals changed, why the hell wouldn’t theirs?
I also think a lot of people seriously underestimate how often girls and women put up with jerks simply because they think they are “hot.” As someon else pointed out, women complain about men letting “hot” women treat them like shit and ignoring their nice girl selves all the time, it just rarely turns into “he likes her because she’s a bitch.” Everyone understands that her being attractive has something to do with him being with her. When it’s women that are chasing after the jerks, however, they almost always like them because they are jerks (supposedly) rather than because they are hot jerks. Like with a lot of things that set off my feminist radar, this seems like a pretty illogical assumption to me.
Yes, some women do “like” jerks for the reasons bean listed. But women, in general, tend to like nice looking men as well, and this is almost always discounted, despite the fact that even women who “like” jerks tend to like nice looking men as well.
I’ll also add that I never trust any guys “but I am nice looking!” for various reasons. The first being that cultural standards of “average pretty” are vastly different for men and women. It may be equally unlikely for men and women to be born supermodel gorgeous, but average looking women are considered, well, much more average looking than average looking men.
The second being that, in my experience, women tend to have a less homogeneous idea of what consititues “hot” for men than men do when it comes to women. Personal tastes vary for both men and women, but women recieve less pressure to conform to the norm in this area simply because there is much less cultural diologue about the female gaze than the male gaze. So, you get a lot more women professing to find Lettermen the epitome of male hotness than you get men rhapsodizing about, well…is there even any woman that would equate?
This comment was written by Mickle.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Bean:
You go, girl! Truth to power and all that.
Mandolin:
Joe’s half right. I can’t say I have much luck with women in meatspace, but this is due primarily to circumstance—the young, single women who get to know me are attracted to me more often than not, but I work in the software industry, as do most of my friends, so such women are few and far between, and they’re usually at least five years older than me and/or live too far away.
Also, I want to make it clear that my complaints about the behavior of women in the context of on-line dating aren’t due to my lack of success with them. There were a few decent, considerate women with whom things just didn’t work out (one didn’t like my atheism, one met a meatspace guy just before we were to meet, and a couple of times there just wasn’t much attraction on either side).
But they were the exception. This kind of thing is the rule:
-One woman moved out of town after exchanging several e-mails and didn’t see fit to tell me until several weeks later.
-One strung me along for two months, saying that she was busy with school but that she was interested and would get back to me when classes got out, and then didn’t bother to check her e-mail for weeks after they did, and threw a fit when I told her (politely) that she was being rude.
-One stopped responding to my e-mails while she got back together with and then broke up with her ex-boyfriend, apologized, and then disappeared again immediately after I responded to her apology.
-One promising young moral philosopher told me, when I IM’d her several days after she started ignoring my e-mails, that it was okay to do that because she’d never met me.
-Several told me that they didn’t have time for dating (!).
-Several more just disappeared into the ether, never to be heard from again. It’s okay if a woman doesn’t want to go out with me, but once we’ve established correspondence I expect the courtesy of an explicit rejection before breaking it off.
Granted, I realize now some of the things I did wrong (strategically, not morally), and I realize that I could have handled some of these situations better, and possibly salvaged things. A person with better social skills and more experience with dealing with strange women probably could have done better. I don’t think Glitch is that person. I’m not saying he shouldn’t try it, especially if he doesn’t see much hope anywhere else, but expecting too much is likely to bring disappointment and heartbreak.
And again, I was going for women in their early ’20s, which probably made things harder, partly because they’re less mature, and partly because I had to compete not only with men my own age, but also with men all the way up into their ’40s. Women in their late ’20s and early ’30s may be easier and/or more considerate.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
“But is a guy not nice if he gives any sort of special attention to the girls he thinks are attractive? Is he not nice if he ever bemoans his social situation at any time?”
Not when she’s the bitch and the cause of his social situation.
“Girls want niceness, and any guy who doesn’t agree with that statement must by definition be not nice.”
Failure to recognise women or girls as individuals and saying things like ” girls want this” and “women want that”um, no I dont call that nice. What, were we all turned to borg or something and I just didnt notice? And while he may be a nice guy, he just exhibited a stupid, assbackwards, steeped in sexism belief.
So now for me personally, this guy might be nice, but thats no longer why I wouldnt date him. He’s an idiot who thinks girls all think alike.
No thanks.
“The point is, the sexism or niceness of these guys should be something that should be evaluated after the fact, not something that must be there or not there by definition.”
Got any other qualifiers that I have to use before I decide what offends me, or strikes me as not nice or I find sexist?
“Myca pointed out, most of the ‘nice guy’ rants are just frustrated young men blowing off steam. ”
I dont care. If they’re blowing off steam and use sexist stereotypes to do so, game over. You dont get a free pass when you use gender stereotypes that cause harm in general to women. Sorry.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
“One woman moved out of town after exchanging several e-mails and didn’t see fit to tell me until several weeks later.”
Im sorry, you must have forgot to inform her of her obligations to a guy on the net she emails, and let her know how high priority you should be to her.
“-One strung me along for two months, saying that she was busy with school but that she was interested and would get back to me when classes got out, and then didn’t bother to check her e-mail for weeks after they did, and threw a fit when I told her (politely) that she was being rude.”
She didnt put you first either? The bitch.
“One promising young moral philosopher told me, when I IM’d her several days after she started ignoring my e-mails, that it was okay to do that because she’d never met me.”
Um, its ok for her to end contact at any time she wants to. Ya know, being a free human being and all.
“Several told me that they didn’t have time for dating (!).”
And?
“Several more just disappeared into the ether, never to be heard from again. It’s okay if a woman doesn’t want to go out with me, but once we’ve established correspondence I expect the courtesy of an explicit rejection before breaking it off.”
And again, you must have forgotten to inform them they must meet your demands and expectations on how and when and why they decide to end contact with you.
“Women in their late ’20s and early ’30s may be easier and/or more considerate.”
Maybe other men know better than to think they have the right to expect anything from women they email.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Pheeno:
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.While I recognize that others have the right not to conform to my expectations, I reserve the right to regard their behavior as classless and inconsiderate.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
What the hell does UU stand for??
[Unitarian Universalism. --Amp]
This comment was written by brandi.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Hows that panned out so far for you datewise, Brandon?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I’m especially amused by the responses by bean, pheeno and mythago.
Feminists: Listen up, men! Don’t objectify women, don’t sexually harass women, and don’t pressure women.
Men: Ok, but then how should we act around women?
Feminists: It’s not our job to provide you with a dating manual, you have to figure it out yourselves.
Men: We are working on that, but it would help to have some general guidelines about what is and what isn’t objectification/harassment/pressure. Because right now we are feeling kind of paralyzed around women.
Feminists: You obviously aren’t trying to understand. “These things are actually quite clear for those who are actually interested in learning them and understanding them.” (actual quote from bean)
Men: Umm, ok, but we are saying that it isn’t clear.
Feminists: That’s because you men are STUPID and you just want an excuse to bash feminism! STUUUUPID!!
(Of course, this dialogue is polemical, and it doesn’t represent the complaints of all straight men or the responses of all feminists. It’s merely my perception of the dialogue, or lack thereof, between feminists and men who believe their dating ability has been hurt by feminism.)
bean seems to think that the messages feminists give men about how they should and shouldn’t behave sexually are clear, or at least can easily be figured out by men. Apparently, young men men should be able to figure out what is and isn’t objectification, sexual harassment, and pressure without feminists explaining it to them. Men who say they cannot do this and remain confused must be (a) not trying to understand, (b) deliberately misunderstanding in order to bash feminism, or (c) just plain stupid.
Both bean and mythago claim that men should be able to figure out how to behave, yet neither actually give an account of how shy, socially inexperienced, young men can figure out what is and isn’t objectification/sexual harassment/pressure. I’ve maintained that these terms are vague and broad. bean has not given any arguments actually showing otherwise, and can only resort to the assertion that they “are actually quite clear for those who are actually interested in learning them and understanding them.” (One qualification: I do think it’s clear what quid pro quo sexual harassment is.)
What basis, however, does bean have to assert this? None that I can see. I guess those concepts are clear to bean, but what is clear to you isn’t necessarily clear to everyone else. Men and women perceive heterosexual interaction differently, so it’s silly to assume that what is clear to women is clear to men, and vice versa.
I am willing to accept the possibility that men who become heterosexually paralyzed around women in response to feminist messages make an unreasonable interpretation of feminism, just as I willing to accept the possibility that girls who become anorexic partly in response to cultural images of beauty make an unreasonable interpretation of what female bodies are desirable. After all, they were never explicitly told to become that thin (I wonder if bean would call anorexic women STUPID?). I was never told to be that paranoid about treating girls in sexist ways. Still, feminism / the media should be well aware of these responses, so they should be held partly responsible, or at least considered negligent.
Unfortunately, the responses by bean and pheeno show that it’s a lot easier to blame men about their romantic confusion than even to consider the notion that feminism could be part of problem, or to actually think up constructive ways to help men follow feminism’s dictates with becoming romantically paralyzed and alienated from feminism.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
defenestrated said:
I think there is a difference between assertiveness, and sexual assertiveness. Although they often go together, one doesn’t guarantee the other. While feminism has done some work encouraging women to be more sexually assertive, it has done a lot more work encouraging men to be sexually passive. What outreach have feminists done to encourage female sexual assertiveness that are on the scale, of say… date rape seminars that are institutionalized in many high schools and colleges?
I said:
defenestrated said:
It’s different because this attitude, of obsessive and paralyzing worry about “pressuring” women is a product of feminism. If feminists don’t intend their messages to men to have this impact, then that’s comforting, but it doesn’t change the fact that feminist messages do have this impact, and feminists don’t qualify their messages in a way to not paralyze men (not all, or even most men, but especially shy men). Feminists cannot wash their hands of this by claiming ignorance of this paralyzing impact on some men, because men have been telling feminists this for decades and feminists haven’t been listening. At best, this is gross negligence.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Hugh, re: #147: We’re on the internets. At a certain point you’ve got to recognize that the “but you didn’t provide me with all the information I could possibly need” is a little bogus when, again, we’re on the internets. There’s information on those tubes, I hear.
Sure, I’m all for the shy and socially awkward of every gender getting a better handle on how to treat people in a progressive world. But why should every - and seriously, this topic comes up on a lot of feminist blogs, and un-heavily-moderated threads pretty much always go this way or far, far worse; so I really mean every - discussion of the asshole behavior that sometimes (and sometimes not) is masked by shyness/awkwardness/”aw shucks, I didn’t know that was sexist” turn into a how-to for all the shy awkward guys who don’t know how not to be sexist?
It doesn’t have to be, because we’re on the internets, but it sure is a handy way of shutting down those uppity chicks.
And now, I will read the comment that I see is addressed to me. I just wanted to get that out first.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
In a previous post, I asked some questions to demonstrate the vagueness and ambiguity of feminist notions of appropriate male sexual behavior:
mythago responded:
How should I, as a shy, socially inexperienced 17 year-old have known the answers to those questions? I know the answers now, no thanks to feminism.
Btw, the kind of guidelines that you and Dianne give are reasonably good (though for me personally, they are many years too late). This is just the kind of thing that I am asking of feminists, not to give me some kind of 1000 page manual on exactly how to act in every single situation. I know that context is important, and I know that most rules have exceptions in the social world. Yet I think the guidelines mythago and Dianne give show that feminists can give qualifications to their directives to men that make them easier to follow. Now all we have to do is get feminists to give out these guidelines of their own accord, not just to defend feminism when its effect on men is challenged.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
You mean there’s a difference between assertiveness to get what one wants for herself, and assertiveness to get what men (or, really, a man, should he find her attractive enough to want to see her…assertiveness) want her to want. Why all the hand-wringing these days about the hookup-culture and “zomg the college girls don’t want the hand-holding, just the sex!” pearl clutching if women aren’t sexually assertive? Feminists in particular don’t tend to be wilting flowers, which might make us a rather useless bunch to ask “How do I approach a female who by nature or training won’t approach me first?”
That’s…wow, that’s what an imbalance looks like to you? Date rape seminars teach men how not to rape. There has been no historical corollary problem of women…fuck, what’s the opposite of not raping? Being human? Women have, historically speaking, tended to be human. I’m lost, Hugh. Help my tiny female brain.
I know, I know, when will I learn - men can’t be expected to figure things out for themselves or bother learning how to respect other people if those damn feminists don’t wrap everything up in a pretty bow for them.
No. I’m sorry. Men don’t inherently need that, as evidenced by all the happy feminist women dating kind pro/feminist men. There are dictionaries to explain concepts like “objectification;” there are literally entire bookstores devoted to feminist thought one might browse through; etc, etc - *if* one is actually interested in learning how not to objectify women or otherwise not be an ass, instead of just needle feminists pointlessly over every topic they raise.
Somehow, I feel like I already said this: Do you think that this conversation has never happened before and is original to this thread?… After a certain point (decades, say), the ignorance is hard not to see as willful, especially on a cultural level.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
defenestrated said:
I’m not asking feminists to provide men with all the information they need to know how to treat women in a non-sexist manner. I know that’s impractical I’m advocating that feminists do a better job of explaining their criteria for which behaviors are sexist and which are not, instead of insisting that it is “clear.”
Are you saying that men can find this kind of explanation on the internets? If so, where?
While feminists continue to be impossibly vague about the boundaries of sexist and non-sexist behavior, shy, awkward guys will, and should, continue to call feminists to account. I never asked for a personal how-to, however.
I joined this discussion was because of my perception that you and others were painting them too broad a brush, as if all men who call themselves “nice guys” are guilty of feigning friendship with women or of manipulating them. The goal isn’t to shut down you uppity chicks, but to respond to what I considered to be an unfair generalization. I think more men would be willing to discuss manipulative Nice Guys(tm) if you were clearer that you didn’t consider all self-identified nice guys to behave in that sexist manner.
But you raise a good point that discussion of the genuinely sexist self-identified nice guys is necessary. I think entitlement can be part of this problem, but I think the root of the problem is the commodification of female sexuality: the notion that female sexuality can or should be exchanged for some kind of non-sexual positive treatment (e.g. paying for a date, doing favors, buying presents).
P.S. Although we may never see eye to eye on this subject, I want to make clear that I do think this is a valuable and interesting discussion even if it might be getting a tiny bit heated.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
“Both bean and mythago claim that men should be able to figure out how to behave”
Read, Hugh. Read widely. Read all the feminist blogs. Let your anger response go “AHHHHH THAT ISN’T WHAT IT’S LIKE YOU ARE MEAN TO ME TERRIBLE WOMEN” and then chill for a while. Think about it.
Eventually, things go “click” and you start to see why women are objecting, and why they aren’t.
It seems to have worked for me, more or less, in trying to understand people of color. I can now usually tell when things are going to go south in a thread (oh, god, that recent Pandagon thread) and why they’re going south, while some white feminists are shouting at the people of color, “OMG, you’re so angry and you’re not making sense.” Well, they do make sense. And when you go in with that assumption, and do the shut up and listen thing, the sense they make is pretty obvious — after you learn to shift your frame.
(A few things I still don’t get, but I have high hopes.)
Look, I’m not going to say this doesn’t suck. Most of our culture is about presenting the way that white men view the world. So, when you want to learn the way that women view the world — and yes, women are pretty much like men, but our social position is different, so we have to deal with different shit than you do. We know about your shit. Generally, you don’t know about ours — you have to step back and listen to us talk about it.
Also, and I don’t know if this is true for other women on this thread, but Hugh, you’re throwing off some signals that are triggering for me. I know a guy who is… um. Extremely awful to women. And has confided in me that he gets sexually excited when women display fear, and that he fantasizes about killing women he’s attracted to — while, at the same time, he aggressively pursues women who have rejected him… well, it’s not a huge step to imagining him as a rapist and a murderer. He’s very frightening.
And on the surface of his arguments about women, he sounds much like you do.
I’m sure that you’re nothing like him. But if other women have had the same experience I have, that may be why some of the women on the board are holding you at arm’s length. Nice guys aren’t always nice or even niceTM, sometimes they’re really dangerous. And it’s hard to tell who’s in what category based on the superficial rhetoric.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
“And on the surface of his arguments about women, he sounds much like you do.”
Which is to say, you say “You women don’t like how men get together with women. I don’t understand. What’s harrassing and what’s not? What am I *supposed* to do?”
And he says the same thing.
And I’m sure your behavior is harmless and all like, “Um, ma’am, may I compliment the highness of your heels?”
But his is very, “Do you mind if I stalk you, showing up at unexpected times leering in the dark, and even after you’ve asked me to stop, cornering you someplace you can’t leave easily while you shake with fear and I get an obvious erection?”
But you come out of it with the same complaint. He professes to be baffled about what he’s done wrong.
I honestly imagine this is a conversation better to be had in person. Do you have feminist friends you could take it up with?
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:19 am
“Failure to recognise women or girls as individuals and saying things like ” girls want this” and “women want that”um, no I dont call that nice. What, were we all turned to borg or something and I just didnt notice? And while he may be a nice guy, he just exhibited a stupid, assbackwards, steeped in sexism belief.”
Is it sexist to say women, say, like chocolate? Now, I know there’s a far cry from carelessly ascribing collective faults, as opposed to fairly neutral statements - bad dietary habits aside - but sometimes it’s just an issue of verbal shorthand. In our hypothetical situation, for instance, our guy’s still in a rant mood.
“Got any other qualifiers that I have to use before I decide what offends me, or strikes me as not nice or I find sexist?”
If all you were arguing for was your own right to feel whatever way you want, then all power to ya. I took your statements to mean that ‘nice guys’ (let’s just use the term ‘losers’ from now on, it’s more illuminative anyway) must never rock the boat as far as their social situations go or else be forever stripped of the right to be called ‘nice’, and that this, far from a personal judgment, was to be more or less an operational definition to be used in rational discussion. The sentiment seems to be similar to be ‘it’s being a loser to complain about being a loser’ - don’t discomfit the non-loser. Defer to him. Be meek and humble. Acknowledge your inferiority. In time, maybe you’ll be initiated into regular society.
In case the last three or four sentences made no sense at all to you, what I’m really getting at is the general plight of the social loser. Remember, losers are ostracized often along the very same (gendered/heteronormative/what-have-you) axes as women or homosexuals or the transgendered. If you have compassion for a fat woman who is shunned by her friends and overlooked by her employers and coworkers, you should also have some for a painfully skinny and greasy man-child who lives in his parents’ basement playing World of Warcraft - and is probably a Nice Guy (TM) to boot. I don’t know if this is the intent, but the subtext here seems to be that when losers make their self-pitying rants that generalize about women, that this makes them sexist EQUIVALENTS to, say, any old-fashioned high rolling chauvinist who notches his scores on the dashboard of his Lotus and who probably sniffs panties. Shy people may harbour sexist beliefs, but that’s a far cry from the brutish ones who put those beliefs into practice. At best, this pigeonholing betrays an inability to see all social hierarchies as equally harmful. The cynical side of me thinks that saying all men are sexist anyway is an awfully convenient way for some individual women to justify their preferring the company of the most sexist and chauvinistic men, especially for romantic partners. Believe me, I’ve seen more than my share of people who talk big but are unwilling to live by their ideologies when inconvenient. This goes for people of all ideologies.
Given the general ‘maleness’ of the popular image of the loser, this could just be a case of PHMT. But it’s one of those special cases of PHMT where the men being hurt too is demonstrably something that deeply affects and ruins lives for a minority.
Mickle, you raise interesting points in #140. My thoughts are, expectations that physical attraction play no role in determining partners is an unrealistic and unnatural demand. Rather, the expectations placed on men - to be good-looking, but to a standard that is reasonably low (don’t laugh, you know it’s true) and highly variable to individual tastes. So many problems could be solved if similar expectations were held for women.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:21 am
“Is it sexist to say women, say, like chocolate? Now, I know there’s a far cry from carelessly ascribing collective faults, as opposed to fairly neutral statements - bad dietary habits aside - but sometimes it’s just an issue of verbal shorthand. In our hypothetical situation, for instance, our guy’s still in a rant mood. ”
Not to be pedantic… okay, to be pedantic… it would be more accurate to say “most women appreciate being given chocolate.”
I know a few inveterate chocolate-hating women who are not amused by my “are you sure you’re human and not some kind of freakish alien in human form?” jokes.
So, anyway — yes, that was pedantic. But at the same time, if I followed you correctly, you were using “women like chocolate” as an example of an appropriate and justfiable generalization, and I know some humorless* women who would disagree.
*They don’t laugh at my jokes, so they must be humorless.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 2:31 am
defenestrated said:
Date rape seminars, while necessary, also have the side-effect of encouraging men to be more passive. I’m saying that if men are going to become more passive, then we need women to become more proactive to pick up the slack, otherwise everyone will become too passive! To accomplish this, we would need a cultural intervention on the level of scale as date rape seminars, not just feminists talking among themselves.
We are not just talking about respect, we are talking about feminist notions of what constitutes respect. And yes, feminists need to explain these notions for men to follow them. Honestly, why wouldn’t feminists want to spell out exactly what their expectations of men are as precisely as possible so men can follow them better? I know that “precisely as possible” will still not be very precise, and depend on context and all that jazz. I’ve already acknowledged this. You act like asking for anything more than “treat women like a human being” or “respect women,” or “don’t objectify/sexually harass/pressure” women is tantamount to wanting some complex algorithm for how to behave. As I said above, even some general guidelines like mythago and Dianne gave above would be an improvement; that’s hardly requiring feminists to wrap everything up in a pretty bow, and I don’t know why you insist on interpreting it that way.
All those happy pro-feminist men, like say… Robert Jensen, who believes that he must abstain from sex with women because he can’t see a way to approach sex with women without dominating or controlling them (see his essay entitled “Patriarchal Sex”)? Or how about Allan Hunter? Maybe he can explain it better than I can:
While some pro-feminist men might be able to figure out how act in a way that feminists consider completely non-sexist and which doesn’t destroy their dating lives, not all of even pro-feminist men can do so. Some pro-feminist men come to the same interpretations of feminism that I did, which feminists here call “misinterpretations.” For instance, I’ve argued that the feminist conceptualizations of “objectification” don’t provide any way to distinguish what is not objectification. John Stoltenberg also interprets objectification so broadly that just about any male sexual fantasy or visualization about women is objectification in his terms. From the chapter “Sexual Objectification and Male Supremacy” in Refusing to be a Man: “male sexuality without sexual objectification is unimagined. Male sexuality without it would not be male sexuality.” The only ethical conclusion to take from Stoltenberg’s analysis is to not express any sexual interest in women, or to entertain any sexual thoughts about them: essentially, to become celibate like him.
The more I read feminists, the more I learn about what is objectification and other feminist sins, but I don’t learn much about what isn’t those things. It just made me even more paranoid about doing them, and obsessively scrutinize my behavior and become even more self-conscious. Sorry, but a while ago I decided that I wasn’t going to do that anymore, and I became alienated from feminism and realized that I wasn’t going to get answers from it.
You seem to be saying that the ignorance of men of acceptable ways for them to behave with women (in feminists’ eyes) is due to willful ignorance. I’m saying that feminists have never given an account of the boundaries of sexist and non-sexist behavior. Men cannot read feminists’ minds. And yes, this conversation has happened many times before. And it will happen many times in the future, until feminists more clearly define those boundaries, and stop trying to deny the experience of men feeling paralyzed sexually with women because they try to take feminism’s mandates seriously.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:13 am
bean said:
I’m also beginning to think that you have no way of answering my arguments. That’s because you seem to be arguing from an article of faith that the meaning of feminist concepts are self-evident or easy to divine, and that what is clear to you should also be clear to young men (if you think that’s an unfair summary of your views, then feel free to clarify). All this shows is a lack of consideration for other perspectives than your own.
I have asked you for justifications for these articles of faith, and you have not been able to provide them. I think that’s why you are left just asserting your opinion and accusing me of nasty motives. For instance, you have not been able to provide an explanation of how young, shy, and socially inexperienced young men are supposed to figure out what is and what isn’t objectification/sexual harassment/pressure according to feminists. Nor have you explained why what is clear to you should be clear to other people, particularly men.
If you think you have established your position and explained it to the best of your ability, then fine, I think I’ve done the same with mine, and I’m quite happy to agree to disagree.
Sorry, bean, but due to limited time and energy, I can’t respond to every single point made at the same time. I’ve already been doing monster posts in this thread. The issue of feminists teaching women to be sexually assertive seemed like a different thread of this discussion from the rest, so I decided to save it for later. So what?
This is just a silly analogy. The confusion of whites over what to call people of color does not harm whites in any significant way. In contrast, the confusion of men over how to behave sexually with women does harm men (and women!).
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:41 am
OK, new point.
Why does someone who runs a blog with the entire purpose of criticizing feminism characterize himself as a nice, oppressed dude, who just can’t seem to get women to like him for inexplicable and incomprehensible reasons?
Could it be because you’re an anti-feminist?
If you think feminism hasn’t taught women to initiate or say “yes” — maybe it’s because they don’t want to initiate or say yes to you.
Stop criticizing. Listen, try to learn, see if maybe things change.
Or, you know, keep stomping your foot because you don’t understand feminism, and keep up the whining, too.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Brandon, It’s pretty likely that the women who said that they didn’t have time for dating were trying to give you a ‘gentle letdown’ to spare your feelings. I don’t know exactly how things went down but if I had to guess I’d assume that was an explicit rejection phrased to minimize personal insult.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 4:17 am
mandolin said:
I do have a fondness for feminist standpoint theories, but I’ve never quite bought the claim that women “know about our shit.” The fact that so many women in this thread cannot consider the perspective of a shy, inexperienced 17 year-old trying to figure out how what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable with women, shows that, no, you don’t know about our shit.
I’m sorry that you have that response. All I can say is that if you want to be sure not to be triggered by my posts, then don’t read them. Anyway, I’ve said most of what I need to say in this thread, and I can feel discussion grinding to a halt.
Maybe if he knew those answers, he would treat women differently. His ignorance and confusion are real, and shared by many men, abusers or not. That is not a license, however, for him to mistreat women.
This sounds like almost the opposite complaint from mine. Taking your account at face value, this guy mistreats women based on his (stated) lack of knowledge of acceptable behavior with them. In my case, my lack of knowledge left me paralyzed with women. For me, it’s not that I did things that were wrong; rather, I couldn’t do anything, because I was so afraid of doing something wrong.
I get it, you can make superficial comparisons between some things I’ve said and some things he has said. I do think the motivations are different, though. My motivation was to do the right thing with women and conduct my sexuality in a way consistent with feminist principles. Do you think he ever had this goal? From your description of him, I doubt it. It sounds like he is using confusion over how to behave as an excuse to behave in ways that he should be able to know are over the line.
Ummm, ok then. Good to know that you don’t think I’m like the guy who fantasizes about killing women he’s attracted to. But if you are sure I’m nothing like him, please quit comparing me to him. Otherwise, it feels like you are trying to shame me out of taking a stance that you and other feminists don’t like. When you compare someone to an abusive person, even if you insist that you are sure they are nothing like that, you are actually insinuating that they are to some degree. That is likely to provoke anger and defensiveness, rather than empathy or open-mindedness.
I don’t characterize myself this way. I don’t complain of women not liking me in the present. I have never characterized myself as “nice” either. I don’t like that word.
I doubt it. If anything, I’m still too feminist, dammit. I need to hang out with frat guys more. (Btw, here is a big expression of my anti-feminism.)
Ironically, this hasn’t been a problem. Actually, all the women I’ve been with have initiated something at some point (partly because I’m still afraid of being too pushy: even when a woman looks into my eyes and tilts her face up, putting her lips close to mine, there is a still a part of me that feels like I’m molesting her by kissing her and wonders if she is really consenting, and I have feminism to thank for that). I wasn’t able to count on them to do it, or anticipate when they were going to, and neither can men in general with women in general.
This comment was written by Hugh Ristik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 5:25 am
I disagree with both Hugh and Bean.
I think Hugh is asking for an unreasonable amount of cohesion from feminism. He admits that some feminists are providing the explanations he’s looking for, but this isn’t enough. Why not?
Hugh, why do you seemingly expect feminists to put as much effort into solving 17-year-old Hugh’s (and 17-year-old Amp’s) problems as feminists do fighting rape? Unless you’re saying it’s never valid for feminists to ever consider rape a more pressing problem, your standard of comparison here seems unreasonable.
Also, given the fact that we share the culture with fundamentalist Christians, do you really think that seminars in public high schools about how girls should make passes at boys who wear glasses are even one-tenth as politically viable as anti-rape education? Not that anti-rape education is at all where it needs to be, by the way. (”Feminist critics” often talk as if feminists have infinite political capital, time and resources. This is part of the reason that you seem, to feminists, to be unfair and unreasonable in your expectations of what feminism should have accomplished.)
Feminism has actually done a huge amount to change the sexual norms of our culture, and to make it more acceptable for women to be sexually and romantically assertive. Not in the form of seminars (although that happens), but in the form of pop culture, magazine articles, talking among ourselves, and all the other forms of transmitting social norms across a culture. The differences between the dating norms in, say, Ithaca New York (where feminism has had a huge influence) and small-town Georgia (less influence) are enormous. But you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that feminism has ever done any good at all, Hugh.
It’s telling that you don’t “thank” feminism for the fact that you’ve been able to meet women who initiate, but you do “thank” feminism for your shyness. That one single pro-feminist post aside, you do seem to have an attitude of blaming feminism for all bad things but never crediting it for any good things.
Do you really think that some shy, good-natured 17 year olds never had problems knowing when was the right time to kiss before feminism came along? Do you really think that if you had been born 50 years earlier, you might not have had similar problems but found a different scapegoat for them? Feminism is not an all-powerful god that is responsible for all the bad things in the universe; but if you realize this, it’s not evident in the way you talk about feminism.
Where have you read feminists saying that “even when a woman looks into my eyes and tilts her face up, putting her lips close to mine,” then there’s no reason to infer that she might want to be kissed, and that if you do kiss her she’s not consenting? And have you honestly never in your life read a feminist saying that it’s okay for girls to initiate (be it a kiss or asking boys out on dates)? When feminists talk about things like the “enthusiastic participation” standard, it seems pretty obvious to me that what’s being discussed is the need for both sexes to be active participants in sex.
Here I pretty much agree with you, Hugh. There are ways in which women are pressured by society to know more about men than vice versa, but it doesn’t translate into knowing what it’s like to be male in all cases, and especially in the cases of men who don’t fit neatly into the male gender role.
* * *
Bean, I really disagree with you that only a stupid or insincere person could have confusion about what something like “objectification” (and a host of related concepts) means. I’ve been in women’s studies classrooms in which I was the only male, and even in a crowd of 30 women who are not stupid nor anti-feminist, there can be a great deal of confusion and dissent about what objectification means.
Plus, there’s obviously a great deal of disagreement among feminists themselves, not only about what exactly objectification is but also about if it’s always harmful, or only harmful in the wrong contexts.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:26 am
That, right there, is a perfect example of male privilege. I couldn’t have came up with a better example myself.
Hugh, I’ll say it again, with a little more detail this time: I have been dating women for twenty years, courting them, sexing them, etc., etc. I have never once felt bewildered about how to treat them with human decency.
You are completely missing the forest for the trees: men *should* feel paralyzed by what women are saying about dating, courtship, seduction, and sex with men because the way things currently stand all of these areas are highly problematic and potentially hurtful and degrading to women. Men should be left with a huge list of questions and with some nagging sense of doubt about how they have acted in the past. If men sincerely wish to have adult, meaningful relationships with women, I would think the very first place to start would be *listening* to what women have to say about how heterosexual courtship, sex, and relationship are difficult and problematic for women because of men’s socialized sexist expectations.
Where is the mystery in figuring out how not to objectify women? That’s really one of the basic social structures we learn, as children even, along with concepts like sharing, playing nice, etc. etc. It’s codified in the Golden Rule, the New Testament, western judicial systems. It’s everywhere. We learn not to covet, not to hoard, to treat others as ourselves. It’s a very practical and prominent fearture of our modern ethos.
Yet men are socialized towards one particular loophole: sexual relationships with women. Men are socialized to be honorable, stoic, do-unto-others type individuals, but all these norms, all these systems are as fickle as Spring and fall away into the moral distance when it comes to male approaches to heterosexual relationships. Where women are concerned, men re-create the larger social mores and, in essence, reduce women to a sub-adult/sub-human category where the rules change and men think the can honestly expect *women* to tell them *specifically* how not to objectify them.
Good fucking grief.
It’s not rocket science Hugh. And even if it *were* that complicated, men have proven themselves to be “experts” in just about every field of science, art, philosophy and relgion there is, so no doubt there are men out there that do get it. Unless you’re suggesting that even though men can ponder the face of god, woman is such a mystery that she can never be known.
Oh, wait. I thought that particular mind-fuck had died. What year is it? 2007 you say? Get out!
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Hugh,
I don’t know how old you are, but from what I’ve read others say, my recollection is that you’re still fairly young — early to mid 20’s. If that’s correct, a lot of what you write strikes me as profoundly impatient — that you want to know the answers and you want to know them NOW and you’re upset that you’re not being given them. Which is its own set of problems …
What strikes me the most is your fixation on dating. This attitude that feminists somehow owe you the knowledge you need in order to find a woman who’s going to fulfill your sexual needs — and that’s the fairest reading I can give you, because that’s where I keep seeing emphasis. I could give you a less fair reading, like, that you see feminist groups as some kind of brothel, or that you’re stalking women through feminism, or a lot of other more negative, more scary things.
Your complaint, over and over, is that feminists aren’t telling 17 year old boys how to get the girls, and that’s not at all the purpose of feminism — making sure teen aged boys and young men get laid. If anything, feminism is more about making sure women understand the ways which teen aged boys and young men will manipulate women in order to get laid.
You quoted this from Allan Hunter –
I’m not sure what Hunter means, but being male, attracted to females and effeminate has problems, but one of them is not being sex-starved. The problem seems to be that you, and Hunter, have both sat down and defined what kinds of people are like what — the sissy is a eunuch, literally or figuratively, who has no interests towards women (assuming that’s his orientation), and who women find so uninteresting that he’s stuck at home, and blah, blah, blah, you’ve got it all figured out. There’s a name for that kind of behavior — objectification.
Objectification isn’t just “I want to separate her from her panties”, which is how too many men view “objectification” — “If I stop expressing my desire to separate her from her panties, I will have stopped objectifying her.”, and if you carry that to its logical conclusion, you’re still objectifying her, because YOU are deciding for HER what SHE is supposed to be wanting.
Here’s a news flash — there are women out there, including perhaps some women you’ve met, who would like to separate you from your boxers. Or briefs. Or whatever. Because just like the sissy that Hunter seems to imply (from how I’ve read your writing of him) is a eunuch, you seem to have this belief that women are not also interested in sex. That if “you” show up as “you” and you let her show up as her self, that somehow you still have to make some move or she has to make some move, because it all seems to be about “moves”.
This is how men seem to be socialized — goal-oriented behavior. Tell a man the objective, tell a man the rules, and he will follow the rules until he reaches the goal. Doesn’t matter if it’s succeeding in business, or sports, or politics, or the bedroom — goal, rules, results. This is so NOT a workable approach to relationships. Men who study feminism the way others study how to invest in the stock market are NOT feminists. Using feminism to get laid doesn’t make anyone a feminist. And that’s what I see people saying to you — feminism isn’t a tool you should be using to get dates, and if feminism seems to not have answers to your dating problems, perhaps you have the wrong understanding of why feminism exists.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:35 am
If you can’t figure out something that basically boils down to the golden rule, your problem isn’t feminism.
Short of taking a hammer and beating it into your head, feminism has clearly, repeatedly stated
Treat us like individual HUMAN beings. Not lesser human beings, not inferior human beings, not hive minded group think borg .(among other rather specific things) Now applying that, it’s rather simple.
Instead of asking ” what do women like/want” you ask ” what does the woman I would like to date like/want”. Specifically.
“It’s different because this attitude, of obsessive and paralyzing worry about “pressuring” women is a product of feminism. ”
It’s a product of generations of men pressuring women. Go to the root of the problem. Where did it start? Did feminists just one day wake up and proclaim ” dont pressure us for sex” with no reason? No.
And disliking being pressured into things is hardly gender specicfic. Do *you* particularly enjoy being pressured into something you’re not sure you want to do or something you think you might regret or might end up harming you in some way? No? How would you prefer the request to be made?
“because men have been telling feminists this for decades and feminists haven’t been listening. At best, this is gross negligence. ”
*snorts* do you really want to bring up listening ability?
“How should I, as a shy, socially inexperienced 17 year-old have known the answers to those questions? ”
They’re called books. Unless you *always* have questions that you just wait around for someone to answer. Or were kept in a bubble that prevented you from ever being exposed to feminism. Or lost your tongue in some sort of accident and were unable to oh..I dont know, ASK.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Amp writes:
I don’t think women “know” so much about men because women are somehow pressured. I think it’s more like how Jews seem to know so much about Christianity, the good, the bad and the ugly, because we live in a Christian-dominated culture (okay, and I was raised Christian, but I digress …) and it all comes pounding down on us, and people make assumptions and assertions, all from the perspective that “Christian” is the norm.
It’s precisely because Christians don’t have to care about when Yom Kippur falls out, or what’s chametz, or what’s the real purpose of Chanukah, that Christians don’t know anything about Jewish beliefs or practices. In the same way, men can ignore what women are about because it doesn’t harm men (okay, it does, but that’s another thread) to just ignore women.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Hugh, it’s taking just about all my restraint not to talk to you as if you’re five years old.
Remember two weeks ago when I asked what feminist theory you had read? When I questioned what your source of feminist information is?
And your response: you said my question was irrelevant and a diversion.
Yet right here in this thread you’re bitching and moaning that you just don’t get it and it’s *our* fault.
Fuck off.
Or in a more polite tone: do your own fucking homework.
Neither bean nor I were born with an inherent understanding of feminism. We were both raised in this sexist culture and feminism came to us as theory and politics, much of which we hadn’t heard before. So we did what any curious, intelligent, and independent adult would do: we read, we studied, and get this, we SEARCHED for answers.
Bean and I, and all the other intelligent feminists out there, do not have the time nor energy to repeat, in every single FUCKING thread, the premises of Feminism 101.
That my friends is not dialogue but a very calculated male approach to dominating feminist discourse. And the funny thing about that Hugh, is that you think you’re unique, intellectually astute and somehow cutting edge in your edgy approach to “feminist critics”. But the sad fact is that you are a stereotype, you are archaic in your thought processes, and you can be (and will be) replaced by any other sad sack man who “doesn’t get it.”
And no, that’s not a personal attack. That’s a critique of your political agenda. That’s a critique of your questionable motives.
You, Hugh, are our own personal “Nice Guy”.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Ah Hugh, you just keep lining them up for us.
Again, perfect example of male privilege. You, my good sir, can’t be bothered to respond to every single point due to your precious time commodity. Yet the bulk of every post of yours consists of lambasting feminists for not taking enough time to address “every single point made at the same time.”
You couldn’t make it any clearer than this.
Your time is no more precious than ours.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Hugh:
Pandagon
Feministe
Feministing
The Chicken
Fetch me my Axe
I Blame the Patriarchy
Brownfemipower
Echidne of the Snakes
These are all excellent jumping off places to learn about feminism. Of course their disadvantage to you is that they are all created, run, and hosted by women. I recognize that you are hesitant to explore outside of your comfort zone, specifically that one in which men are trying to create, run, and host “feminist” discourse. But really, if you’re going to continue to blame feminism for your list of social ills, then you need to go to where the feminism is. Quit hiding behind other men.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Oh, and:
A View from a Broad
But that one, of course, demystifies your whine about women not serving in combat roles, so it might be a little over your head.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“My motivation was to do the right thing with women and conduct my sexuality in a way consistent with feminist principles. Do you think he ever had this goal?”
Yep. It was his stated, repeated, and emphasized goal.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 11:26 am
(oh, but shockingly, when it was explained to him that what he was doing was awful, he just — didn’t get it.
A) How could he be doing something awful?
B) How is he supposed to *know* it’s awful. Begin cycle again.)
Eh, Hugh, you smack of an awful lot of privelege, including what seems, to me, a deliberate misreading of my attempt to explain why your behavior may be triggering, so I, personally, shan’t waste more breath on you. You do a good impression of an anti-feminist.
*
Amp, with respect, I don’t see anyone on this thread unable to grasp what it’s like to be a shy 17 year old who is supposed to be in an initiator role. I see people on this thread unable to concede that it allows entitlement and whining and blame of women and feminists for the problems it triggers.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Men who study feminism the way others study how to invest in the stock market are NOT feminists.
[Delurks just long enough to pass Julie a plate of oatmeal cookies]
[Relurks]
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
After reading through this thread, I feel worse and worse for my male friends. As a lesbian (for the uninitiated, that means I am a woman who, in some freudian psychoanalysis order, has sex with, dates, lives with, and is permanantly coupled with another woman), I am no more in tune with what a woman wants than any male. Any woman on here who pretends that she knows what another woman wants at all times is wrong, Golden Rule notwithstanding. Do unto others as they would do unto you doesn’t work when the woman does not want the same thing as you, i.e. I hate being coddled when I’m sick but the woman I adore needs it.
I find that most feminists conveniently neglect lesbians, since we are a little harder to bash. The more I read feminist theory, the more I am glad I do not associate with many women at all.
This comment was written by Veronica.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Veronica, wait - it’s the feminists in this discussion who’re trying to make a monolith of womankind?
Men: Chicks dig assholes. I know this because chicks don’t dig a nice guy like me.
Feminists: Women want all sorts of things; maybe your behavior has something to do with women not liking you.
Men: But I can’t behave in a way that’ll lead to women liking me until you tell me What Women Want
[hey wasn't that a movie? funny that that phrase is associated with Hollywood's most outspoken bigot du jour]
Feminists: But there is no “what women want.” Just don’t be an asshole, and you should be fine.
Men: But Teh Women won’t tell me how not to be an asshole! (me! me! etc.)
No offense to lesbians, but I don’t think it’s a huge sin of omission not to bring up the desires of women who don’t date men in a conversation about the dynamics that occur when - ding ding ding - women date men. An analogy: if we were discussing the appreciation of the regional differences of Chinese cuisine, would we be remiss in not mentioning that a whole lot of people really prefer Japanese food? We wouldn’t be pretending that there are no sushi lovers out there [mmm....sushi], just not bringing up every topic that could possibly relate to the love of Asian food. See?
(that may not be a great analogy, but now I’m hungry.)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“I find that most feminists conveniently neglect lesbians, since we are a little harder to bash. The more I read feminist theory, the more I am glad I do not associate with many women at all.”
Voila — exceptionalism.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I have been approaching the debate from the perspective as a woman who also dates women and who at times has been as mystified as any man about the desires of the women/woman I wanted to be near. Incidentally, I also used to date men and could talk about that, but that’s another story. Oh, and let’s not speak about what your use of sushi as a food means what you’re thinking about my sexuality.*
The entire discussion seems to be framed around the notion that a man being interested in a woman sexually is a bad thing. The very act of the man trying to garner the woman’s attention is terrible because…er…um…well, I got nothing. I see a lot of privilege and entitlement being thrown around in these arguments, but my own views allow desire and entitlement to be two different things. In my experience, this has been the case for men and women of all types in most situations. I can covet something or someone without taking it. For the Bible-minded above this post, that’s why those are two different commandments.
It is a lovely situation where a mutually non-sexual friendship develops into a mutually sexual relationship. The problem is that for many of us, that situation does not ever come into being. We actually need to work our way into a sexual relationship, not necessarily due to our having unsightly personality and/or physical characteristics. (Living in Wisconsin, and previously the deep South, while homosexual is why my darling was single for seven years.) I believe that the need for a sexual partner is a normal desire for all genders and sexes; there is nothing shameful, in my mind, with approaching someone with that goal in mind. So, why not figure out how to interact with someone you find interesting and potentially sexually compatible without insulting her, hurting her, or driving her away?
You said it’s because asking those questions comes off as impatient and self-centered. Should men therefore look in the opposite direction for inspiration and assume that their being noticed by a woman is an unlikely event that they dare not merely DREAM of? That doesn’t sound very kind to anyone who wants to date women, nor does it seem very egalitarian. When someone like pheeno adamantly insists that the golden rule is the way to garner a woman’s affection, I am reminded of Hillel. (Come with me on this. It makes sense.) The golden rule, “Do unto others as they would do unto you” only works when both of you want the same things. In the great universals of not murdering, not stealing, not raping, this works wonderfully. In the great non-universal of dating, it fails utterly. That’s why you have a man being nice to a woman and following her around like a hopeful puppy…because that’s what he thinks she wants from him as a man, what he thinks he has to do to attract her. Hillel’s approach was “Do not unto others as you would hope they not do unto you,” which works in many more situations, since it never presumes someone’s likes.
Incidentally, I hate it when people use friendship as a way of “getting to” sex in either direction. A man who tries to be a woman’s friend in the hopes she will sleep with him, without her saying something to indicate interest, have no right to be upset. However, a woman who expects a potential sexual partner to know her as a friend before consenting to sex should not be surprised when her friends are disappointed they do not become sexual partners. They met the condition she set forth, in those partners’ minds; what else are they supposed to do? Apply the golden rule? They already did! Do you see what I am talking about?
A woman, if she feels like she is being pressured, has the right to tell the person to buzz off. A man should have the right to ask directly without needing to apply pressure or be stupidly covert. Asking “Would you like to be my sexual partner?” might not be socially correct, but it’s honest and disambiguous. Perhaps instead of guessing and social dancing, we should try that approach?
Maybe I’m on another planet. That’s why I used a dating site. We all knew what we were after. In my mind, asking what you want greatly increases your chances of getting it.
*I might be joking.
This comment was written by Veronica.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Another two notes; sorry for the long discussion.
Most of my comments had men as the requestors and females as the requestees, since that is what this post addresses. In my world, it is woman A and woman B and there is no reason, other than social conventions, that the roles should not be reversed for heterosexuals. Replace nouns as you wish.
As someone who spents many decades trying to learn social cues since they never came naturally, I am infuriated by sexual dynamics. I don’t watch much TV anymore since they revolve around “amusing” miscues that I have acually made because I didn’t know better. Perhaps it is a mark of my true geekery that I have little patience for this form of obfuscating. Ask for what you want, accept the answer you receive. If there is a “yes, if…” determine if the “if” is something you’re willing to adhere to. So much simpler.
This comment was written by Veronica.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
OK, first, because I won’t be able to focus on the rest of your comment until I get this off my chest - the sushi thing had nothing to do with your sexuality. I came at it from my initial idea of comparing dating to Chinese food, because - since China is a very very large country - has a wide spectrum of regional cuisines. Kind of like hetero dating involves a wide spectrum of individual desires, but is by no means the be-all-end-all of Asian food. I mean, dating in general.
I now notice not only the implication you alluded to, but also the massive size difference between China and Japan that isn’t really representative of the number of lesbians in the world. Neither implication was intentional - I was just sort of picking a nearby country with tasty but different food. I’m sorry for not thinking through that comparison more. Now, onward…
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
ms_xeno writes:
[Grabs a glass of milk and eats the cookies while reading the rest of the thread.
Nice cookies.]
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Veronica, thank you for adding your insights to this discussion; I happen to agree with a lot of what you’ve said. The ever-increasing irrelevance of the gender roles that, as you point out, don’t apply to your love life - that irrelevance is exactly what the feminists here are trying to show exists. We’re (rather pointlessly, I think at this point) trying to drill it into these dudes’ heads that there are no such inherent roles - as proven in part by their irrelevance to lesbian interactions - and that some men’s desire to frame their dating problems in terms of such roles are their own issue.
I think that the part where you and I are looking at this conversation differently can be opened up here:
The feminists in this discussion have been saying that in this context, by these guys, the questions are being asked in an impatient and self-centered way. No one here has negated the awkwardness of the shy 17 year old, but there is no such 17 year old here.
When we do start getting specific, the response is “Well why are you telling us? We’re not the ones who need it, it’s all the kids out there who have No Opportunity Ever to learn these things! You feminists should hold a seminar. ” [although, note that the suggestion there is still to change women's behavior through so-called assertiveness training; not actually to teach men where the lines are to be drawn]
So when we explain how there are endless opportunities for the kids out there to learn these things, like the decades of feminist writings and real-live feminists out there, the guys here come back with “But what ARE these things that are out there for the kids to learn? No one ever spells them out, and I think you’re making up their existence entirely. What is the poor shy awkward 17 year old to do? You ladies really need to be more specific.”
And so it begins again. In other words, they’re borrowing one of the most basic tactics of emotional abuse and setting up a cycle where there is no way for the women and/or feminists to not be at fault for everything in these guys’ eyes. This discussion isn’t happening in good faith, is the thing, though it might not be readily apparent if you haven’t had this conversation five million times, as a couple of us seem to be weary of having done.
Disappointed, sure. Angry and making accusations against all women and their monolithic and misguided preferences? It’s too common to be surprising per se, but it’s certainly grounds to call “asshole.” And that’s what the OP was about*, the guys who 1) use their interpretation of gender roles to 2) twist their disappointment into rage against women. I really, really recommend that any of the feminists here who have some (oh all right, a lot of) time on their hands go over and read the Thinking Girl thread that tracked back to here for more on this rage.
Like you said, Veronica, this kind of pining and disappointment aren’t gender-specific. That’s precisely why it irks me so much to see “in love with a friend and sad” dressed up as a problem that only affects the sad little nice guys, and a problem that we feminists created with all our “don’t rape me” crap.
Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes. I’m slowly figuring this out for myself, too - I’m an introvert, I live in my head, so I’ve always kind of assumed that the people who don’t live in my head have a better idea of what the world is like than I do. I grew up following their cues, and am only in my mid-twenties realizing just how utterly fucked up those cues were. They’re not supposed to come naturally to everybody, because they’re made-up constructs. And among the less crappy results is that it keeps me from watching the majority of tv shows, too :(
Veronica, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I see your initial impulse to pin a lot of the guys’ tactics on the feminists here as a not-at-all-uncommon result of very skilled divide-and-conquer tactics. Just like the feminists are supposed to now get frustrated with the supposed “women who love assholes” instead of focusing on the issues behind a man’s instinct to say that women love assholes, women in general are supposed to join the men in blaming the feminists for the existence of oppressive gender roles. We didn’t invent them, we’re just pointing them out. Don’t shoot the messenger, jump on the back of her bike and join her in fighting the root causes. On the way, you could help her clear up her metaphors if you’re so inclined.
This comment was written by defenestrated.__________
*I’m going to seriously fly off the handle if anyone tries to dispute that, seeing as I wrote the damn OP and know damn well what it was about. I know these guys have been pretending it was about something else entirely, but that’s the exact skewed perspective that the post was about. It’s all very meta ;)
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Julie, I’ll trade you a spring roll for a cookie :D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Hey lookie! I’m invisible!
:0
*snort*
Veronica, to state the obvious, no one can ever know another person. Not unless you objectify them. Then you think you know them. Then you think you have a leg up on guessing their desires. To treat someone as yourself, to value them equally with yourself, is to drop the guessing and ask. What is the point in trying to create and maintain a mystery about someone else’s life? I know romanticism is a grand thing in the patriarchy, but one has to wonder why. Get the women in your life off pedastals.
Further, just because you’re a woman, and just because you’re a lesbian ™, doesn’t preclude you from sexism or sexist beliefs.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:22 am
defenstrated writes:
Are these kosher or vegan spring rolls?
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Right. “You know, I could lay a big line on you and we could do a lot of role-playing, but the simple truth is, is that I find you very interesting and I’d really like to make love to you.” That worked so well in Tootsie.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:40 am
beanDefenestrated writes:It could also be that Veronica is a few years older than you and remembers a time when lesbian politics were different than they are today. There was a time when this sort of thing was absolutely forbidden (I’m the one who’s sitting down) and there was a lot of backlash in the lesbian universe about “feminism” and “feminists”.
The women I’ve dated who are older than me, which is most of them, and who survived that era, have a very negative attitude towards feminism. It can take a lot of effort, and G-d knows I’ve been through it a few times over the years, to get those women to understand that feminism is not supposed to be about making sure all women behave like some kind of feminist-approved robots.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 8:07 am
nobody.really writes:
Ignoring that Tootsie was a movie, that un-line is a line. It’s the “I’m not going to play any games with you” game.
The point that keeps being made over and over and over, is that it’s the games, the role-playing, the putting other people into boxes, that is wrong. I’m constitutionally incapable of walking up to a stranger and saying “I’d like to have sex with you.” because it’s just … uh … weird. But it is possible to find oneself in a situation where “sex” just … happens. And it can be done without clever pickup lines or “I’ll buy you dinner, you’ll lay there and moan, I’ll sneak out the door while you’re asleep” nonsense. It can also not happen, and that’s fine as well. But all the “I have to say the right thing or act the right way or ….” (besides not acting like a rapist or a stalker …) is B.S.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Bean,
You’re right — that was defenstrated.
Amp, can you fix the attribution?
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Julie - it’s definitely a vegetarian spring roll, so sure, kosher and vegan too, why not? Ah, the power of the mind (over imaginary objects).
Good point about people a few years older than me; I knew there was something in Veronica’s thinking that just didn’t make sense to me, and I think an age difference is likely to be part of it. I’m still inclined to see the same divide-and-conquer tactics in that part of the history of feminism, though, since by no means are straight and/or younger feminists immune to such tactics. My of-debatable-accuracy observations (so really, please correct me on any b.s.):
As lesbians and non-lesbian feminists have gotten on better terms over the years, that divisional tension has been partly shifted to ever-louder rifts between white feminists and feminists of color, cisgendered feminists and transwomen (neither feminist nor non-feminist transwomen can help but push society’s gender boundaries until such a time as society gets over transgenderism, so the ‘feminist’ distinction seems less necessary there), etc. It’s fighting over scraps, which to me makes a lot of sense as semi-natural responses to marginalization. Not to say that such rifts are good or useful, but they’re there - and always shifting, hopefully always decreasing, as feminism & society both shed their layers of outmoded conceptions of womanhood, and assimilate to women’s autonomy over time.
Huge nerd that I am, I always think of the factory scene from Les Miserables when I’m thinking about this, the scene where all of Fantine’s coworkers gang up to shame her for having a kid and get her fired for not screwing the boss; of course the other poor women don’t like their shitty range of shitty options, but as long as that’s the way things are, “better her than me,” y’know? [fwiw, which may be nothing, itseems like the prostitutes were in general a much kinder and more welcoming bunch. maybe there's something to be said for not having any illusions of power left, hence no need to scramble over others to assert what power you do have. what was I talking about?]
Why oh why do I go about trying to make cultural observations after half a cup of coffee? Pardon and and all of the nonsense, please :D
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
defenestrated,
The particular time in history, which was the late 1970’s and into the early 1980’s, wasn’t caused by any sort of men-dividing-women conflict, it was a purely internal rift that grew out of a particular ideology, which was that lesbians shouldn’t be immitating gender roles within relationships. There remain some lesbian feminists, even today, who believe that any sort of expression of genderedness — butch or femme — is wrong, except that the norm is much more towards butch than femme.
Now, there’s immitating gender roles, and there’s immitating gender roles. Which is to say, that the model of the gentlemanly butch opening doors and valiantly protecting her femme wife, who probably stays home and irons boxers and cooks dinner, is something that I’m more than delighted to see go buh-bye. But when you have a woman, like my (deceased) wife in that photo who’s just not at all comfortable in dresses, and someone like me who draws snickers if I try to get all butch, what the heck were couples like that to do? The result was known as the “Sex Wars” and remains a very sad, and bitter, memory even today. That link does little justice to the complexity of the issue as well as the lasting bitterness.
Much of that conflict required more analysis than many were willing to give it, but those “many” were all within the lesbian community — it wasn’t men or straights dictating terms, though even that statement is subject to analysis, it was women IN that community dictating terms to women IN that community. This continues today and there remain prominent feminists, or at least, vocal feminists, who seek to dictate what lesbian sexuality looks like, what lebian relationships look like, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Anyway, that’s the background. I return you all to our regularly scheduled discussion about why men can’t ever seem to figure women out …
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Julie, I’m really sorry to hear about your wife. Your “Sex Wars” link doesn’t go anywhere, alas. Always up for reading about sex wars.
On a lighter note, that photo reminds me of a priest of exceptional physical beauty I knew in high school. The gals in church youth group called him “Father What A Damn Waste”. Forgive this heterosexual male for classifying you as “Tragically Lesbian”. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“Anyway, that’s the background. I return you all to our regularly scheduled discussion about why men can’t ever seem to figure women out … ”
That was fascinating, Julie, thank you. I was aware of parts and pieces.
The photo is gorgeous.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Julie - Thanks for the background; this topic is way more interesting than rehashing why the monolith of men can’t understand the monolith of women. Helped along somewhat by this thread, I’m seeing it as somewhat akin to debating how Smurfs propagate, ie a discussion based on fantasy premises.
See, I think my ideas mesh with what you’re saying, just with different framing: from an overall cultural standpoint [toss in a few academic-terms-I'm-not-clear-on to taste], I’d mostly take the opposite hypothesis in said analysis. IMO, just because it’s women (or whoever, really) perpetuating patriarchal roles doesn’t make them any less patriarchal, but for my earlier comment to make sense in that context one kinda has to anthropomorphize patriarchy and allow that it can be described as having “tactics” as such. Which I can understand being a semantic leap not everyone’s down with taking, but I think most clearly in those kinds of terms.
I see it as something along the lines of there being collective (conscious and/or unconscious) motivations behind the constructs available for individuals to choose from - I’m not totally sure where I’m going with that, but your second paragraph has sort of gotten me thinking in that [nebulous] direction, as far as behavior vs. style and appearance, and how the latter are conflated with the former. On the surface, it’s absurd that there would be an inherent connection between preferring pants and opening doors; that we as a culture think there is one is pretty illuminating, in my view.
Heh, btw -when I first looked at that picture I had my laptop screen slanted away from me, and it was shading-distorted in such a way that it looked like you were using the front of your shirt as a vase, with the stem standing up out of your cleavage.
And - as a feminist, natch - I would’ve had to object to that. Putting thorns down one’s shirt just seems downright foolhardy. ;)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Urph. I’m guessing the link shouldn’t have been in quotes. Here’s the URL –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Sex_Wars
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
defenestrated writes:
I guess at lower resolution it does look like that!
And that’s not a shirt — it’s the jacket for the dress I wore when she and I ran off to Vermont and got civilly unionized. That’s also the tux she wore ;)
(And apropos a comment I made upthread, my ex-girlfriend from college was supposed to come over with her wife (they live in Mass. where marriage-marriage is legal), but her wife was ill and it was just my ex-girlfriend, my wife and I romping around Vermont, acting like tourists. Which should be a clue for the guys that it really is possible to be friends with women, including women one was once romantically attracted to, and not have your head explode.)
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Yeah, uh, Julie, would I be objectifying you if I said you were quite lovely? I mean I know lovely is an adjective and an adjective only describes nouns and nouns are things and I don’t want to make it seem like I think you’re a thing, even though technically a person is a noun too and I’ve seen you use adjectives to describe people so really doesn’t that mean you want me to objectify you? - oh alack! Why did we feminists have to introduce such concepts!? My brain hurts.
[Heh, I'm sorry, I really couldn't resist. And I did try. It is a beautiful photo, though, and I too am sorry to hear it didn't come with a happier ending.]
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“Subtle sexism. Covert sexism. Overt sexism. It’s all sexism and it’s all harmful. And each of these forms of sexism allows the other forms to exist.”
So it’s a bit of an in for a dollar, in for a million type deal? To use a specific example within sexism, there’s therefore no difference between making an inappropriately offhand comment about an applicant’s figure and, say, making a full grab for her titties?
All sexism isn’t equally harmful. If male sexist attacks against women could be charted on a radar screen, the ones committed by shy, loser-ish men would be the blips that could be mistaken for puffy little rainclouds. You can dislike these guys all you want but don’t pretend it’s because of sexism.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
defenstrated,
It’s a professional photo — if I didn’t look good in it I’d feel like I didn’t get my money’s worth :)
And, yeah, the ending to the otherwise happy story sucks. I wrote a piece recently, on the occassion of a friend’s wife passing away, and I’m in one of those “I think I’ll stay home and cry in my beer. A lot” moods. If Amp starts a thread in which something like it (I titled it “Reflections on our own mortality” where I posted it earlier) can be posted I’ll sanitize and post it. Then we can all get really depressed.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Ugh!
“Don’t complain about this, ladies, it’s not that important…”
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
As far as whether there’s a difference between the thinking process behind the two - hell no there isn’t.
The rest is just a matter of degrees of expression. It’s shitty to scream “YOU FUCKIGN ASS I HATE YOU” at the top of your lungs in somebody’s face, and only slightly less shitty to say “You fuckign [sic ;) ] ass, I hate you” in a calm voice. Just because one carries an implicit physical threat doesn’t make it any less hateful.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
To clarify:
“just because one carries an implicit physical threat”
is meant to apply to both ends of that analogy - there’s a physical threat in grabbing someone’s “titties,” but there’s no less hate in….well hell, in describing women’s bodies in general, as a whole (which is the implication when a word like that is used in a general analogy about sexism as a whole) in misogynistic terms like that.
IOW, don’t anybody worry, we don’t expect little anti-feminist brains to be capable of grasping this one. After all, in prehistoric times*, the anti-feminists were the ones cleaning lint out from between their toes. They haven’t evolved a genetic reason to think beyond their toes and, on a good day, navels.
———-
This comment was written by defenestrated.*Which I know all about, and you can’t prove me wrong because that’s why it’s *prehistoric*, duh. So there won’t be any pesky “evidence” getting in the way of pushing my self-serving fantasies on the rest of y’all. Crimey, I think somebody laced my coffee with snark this morning.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
sylphead, it’s disingenuous of you to pretend that the post you quoted said there was no difference between physical and verbal assault. The difference is a matter of degree, though; not type.
“Well, I could be doing something a lot worse!” is never an excuse for bad behavior. Sorry.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 2:43 am
[...] Anti-feminism bingo: a master-class in sexual entitlement.lauredhel4/14/07 05:23 pm I’ve been working on an Antifeminist-Bingo! card. It was actually pretty difficult to narrow it down to 25 cells; there are plenty more I could have added, and you’re invited to add your own in the comments.If you find yourself getting frustrated in a feminist conversation with someone who seems to just Not Get It, have a peek through the card. Odds are your antagonist will have used 3, 4, 5 or more of these somewhere along the line. If you’re a man trying not to be an arsehole in feminist conversations, but you seem to find yourself floundering and can’t figure out why, you might like to scrutinise your comments critically to see if some of these messages are inadvertently coming across. [...]
This comment was written by Selective and Arbitrary - Anti-feminism bingo: a master-class in sexual entitlement..Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 3:29 am
[...] What triggered this? I’ve been reading this comments thread, starting around about here. [...]
This comment was written by Anti-feminist-Bingo! A master-class in sexual entitlement. at Hoyden About Town.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I am not an older lesbian, no, but I am someone who has sadly perpetrated at least once butch prejudice. (Additionally, I dated someone who had lived through it and she impacted my views significantly.) Although it is not a look/gender/preference that I am attracted to, age has made me accept it much more than in my youth that being butch and filling a butch gender role is an acceptable part of lesbianism. There is a very large segment of the lesbian community who idealizes almost total androgynity in action, dress, and physical appearance. Others can accept traditional trappings of femininty but abhor those who take on any aspect of masculinity. Others can accept the masculine characteristics but feel that femininity is unacceptable because it provides heterosexual privilege. Some find butch-femme too reminiscent of heterosexuality, some find butch-butch disturbing, and femme-femme too fitting into heterosexual male desires. All these based mainly on dress, partially on behavior. By having long hair and occasionally wearing a dress, I’m a femme. By owning power tools, being aggressive, and walking with confidence, I’m a butch. And depending on how I classify myself, regardless of anything else, certain women would be more or less attracted to me…even if the only thing that changed was the label. Julie did a wonderful job of explaining this before me, but I wanted to reiterate that.
Right, but to me, it is weird only because you’ve been taught that doing so is wrong and that sex should be approached with delicacy. Taking this to its logical extremes, you don’t walk into a restaurant and nervously shuffle around before asking to maybe get a table, then maybe hint at being hungry and hoping. Food is pragmatic. I think that sex should be equally pragmatic. Having never seen Tootsie, I don’t know the line quoted so derisively at me, but your failure to agree with the presmise does not make my view any less correct.
But contrasted againsted the above discussion, in my mind, even the act of “asking and discussing” is unpleasant and presumptuous. How does a potential mate get to that point?
Totally back on the oroginal topic, I talked to my male friend who is in a UU theology program. He says that part of the problem is lies with how the UU has approached its children. UU has produced a generation of confident, capable women, which is univerally lauded. The problem is that it has produced a generation of submissive, powerless men as well. It is not that both cannot exist at once. Rather, in addition to bolstering the women, they also subjegated the males. Some may think that’s normal or desirable, but teaching all children to get to the same level of confidence should be the goal (to me.)
This comment was written by Veronica.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 9:38 am
“Nices guys finish last. Women seem to like that”
This comment was written by Buzzcook.Bad jokes aside,
I was a nice guy while I was single (hopefully I still am). I didn’t have problems finding partners.
Not as many as I’d have liked or always the ones I wanted, but I ain’t Clark Gable so that’s just the way it goes.
I doubt being a nice guy stands in the way of any man’s romantic aims.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I’m dropping in here without reading most of the discussion, and I got here via a comics blog, but I have a tip for the guys who seem to be having problems negotiating this situation:
If you make sure you’re around, and being your best self, and the woman in whom you’re interested _is also interested in you_, things will happen. Most likely, she will make things happen to move from friends to dating.
If she doesn’t, and you’re not actually interested in friendship, then best to move on.
I got my first date, my first girlfriend, and got together with the woman who is now my wife of eight years (and love of 16 years) that way, and at the time those things happened I was almost pathologically passive, and borderline incompetent at reading positive signals.
I grew out of the whole “why do girls like bad guys instead of nice guys like me” mindset when I was about 18. The first step was realizing it was not my problem. Realizing it wasn’t actually a problem at all came later.
This comment was written by Eric Grant.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Wait! You mean you treated a woman like an equally human person….and she didn’t eat you alive?
Eric, your last paragraph reminds me of some other, similarly great advice from a menz on the tubes.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
FWIW, the whole outlook of mine, corresponding to Nice Guy Syndrome, was in a way part of a larger social paranoia that made me standoffish around any guy I didn’t know whom I perceived to be “cool” in High School (who I would have identified, sometimes, as bad guys).
The paranoia was honestly earned in grade school and after, and took much longer to identify than the NGS (and I’m still trying to shake it).
This comment was written by Eric Grant.Report this comment to the moderators
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Eric, it’s funny, I’m realizing as I get into my midtwenties that I’m still growing out of plenty of that social paranoia thang. The “cool” girls in high school that i had only seen but didn’t know at all struck me as the ‘bad guys,’ and it fucked with me to no end when I got to college and had a good friend who hated every woman with my body type-plus-blonde hair (for, from my pov, no discernible good reason). I think it gave me something for a while there which could be reasonably named “Be A Nice,Pretty Girl” ‘butnotTooPretty anddon’tseem TooOverlyNice’ Syndrome.
This comment was written by defenestrated.[and, hence, This Thread]
Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2007 at 7:33 am
[...] question strikes me as about as revealing as the whole ‘black or teh wombzy president’ one: it’s NiceGuy™ meets rape culture + guns in a disgustingly phallocentric society. Or, say, Peter Pan grows his own [...]
This comment was written by muttering in a corner.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2007 at 12:33 am
“sylphead, it’s disingenuous of you to pretend that the post you quoted said there was no difference between physical and verbal assault. The difference is a matter of degree, though; not type.”
The distinction, as I remember it, was not about physical and verbal assault, my crude ‘titties’ analogy aside. It was with equating the sexism of shy social misfits - if their sour grapes angst can truly be called sexism - with that of the more, traditionally domineering males. Sorry, Animal House has ten times the sexism of Revenge of the Nerds. If you don’t catch my drift, I’m afraid my point has been lost.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
So, a certain level of sexism is tolerable and below feminist critique?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Isn’t power a critical component of sexism as feminists define it? If so, how can the impotent anger of a man bitter because he can’t get women to do what he wants them to do be considered sexist? Where’s the power?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Power adheres to classes as well as individuals.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I wasn’t able to read every single comment here so forgive me if this is redundant.
If the issue is that “Nice” guys aren’t getting sex from the female friends they are attracted to, why don’t those “Nice” guys find a “Nice” girl who will date and sleep with them?
If some “nice” guys are lamenting that women are attracted to assholes, maybe they should consider that guys are also attracted to women who are assholes.
In my experience, many many people (both male and female) have a tendency to like the chase. It’s safer to long for something out of reach, and also more attractive–like the mindset that says, “I’d never want to belong to a club that would accept me.”
True Love involves an incredible amount of Ego annihilation. All human beings seem to go through some games to avoid this crushing. True love involves a merger, a surpassing of boundaries. Most of us like to hide safely behind the boundaries we construct.
This comment was written by One.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2007 at 12:52 am
“So, a certain level of sexism is tolerable and below feminist critique?”
No, but if something or someone is ten times more sexist, especially as it pertains to real life effects and not some creepy deontological judgments, I’d expect that something or someone to get it tenfold. Margin of error of two orders of magnitude.
You’re still missing the fact that many of these impotent men are social victims the same an overweight woman or a transvestite is, for the same underlying reasons. (ex. shy men who can’t assert themselves are less *masculine*, and so forth.) The tone here suggests that all these men are sexist, some are just confident enough to express it and some aren’t (but they’re all equally reprehensible, because in this case mere thought is as deontologically wrong as, say, actually using power to put thought to action); the glaring chunk being left out here is the power dynamic between those ‘just confident enough to express it’ and those who are not. If we started out discussing racial privilege, the claims of workplace discrimination by an upper-class white male and an obese white female wouldn’t be both equally invalid simply because both are both white. People fall under more than just one mode of classification, you know, and this site is usually very good at spotting all of them. Why would it be missed here?
Saying that people are greedy and selfish anyway has this remarkable way of covering for those few who are really greedy and selfish, saying that all world leaders are war criminals anyway has this remarkable way of covering for those are who really are war criminals, and saying that all men are sexist anyway has this remarkable way of covering for those who really are sexist.
“If the issue is that “Nice” guys aren’t getting sex from the female friends they are attracted to, why don’t those “Nice” guys find a “Nice” girl who will date and sleep with them?”
Well, if the issue is money, why not just become a millionaire? Not here to tease you, but ’tis is simplifying it, my friend.
“If some “nice” guys are lamenting that women are attracted to assholes, maybe they should consider that guys are also attracted to women who are assholes.”
Yes, I’ve noticed this also. Many “nice guys” who begrudge women liking assholes often themselves are gaga for the most vapid and bitchy gURlies, because they happen to meet conventional standards of attractiveness - the same ones that tell those same guys that they are about as desirable as unwashed spit in a cup. In this case, I have a problem with them, too - my issue is with people who say that “nice guys” cannot utter a peep, ever, thereby closing the door on another avenue of social hierarchy and stigmatization. Even if recognition of such is personally inconvenient for some involved.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I’m with Mandolin:
I loved Revenge of the Nerds but weren’t there women who hung out with them too? They would be as hurt by the sexism of the nerds as women who hung out with sexist frat boys. Perhaps frat boys do more damage societally than nerds but nerds and frat boys do equal damage when they are sexist on an individual level.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2007 at 8:08 pm
In Animal House, the pretty women were objects of lust. The unattractive women were objects of ridicule.
In Revenge of the Nerds, the pretty women were objects of lust. The unattractive women were objects of ridicule.
In one movie, they were objects of lust/ridicule by the rowdy frat guys.
In one movie they were objects of lust/ridicule by nerds.
In both, they were objects.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
They’re equally sexist on an individual level. I don’t get it when men say the sexism of nerds isn’t equally harmful. Maybe when frat boys get older and run the world e.g. that idiot in the White House they are more sexist to women overall.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:36 am
I think it has to do with some confusion over the term ‘nice guy’. Some of the people that responded to this seemed to be using the term nice guy to refer to a man who genuinely cares for the woman in question but is too shy or socially inept to communicate this. Others are using it to refer to a passive aggressive man who doesn’t really care about the woman in question and thinks ‘kind deeds’ entitle him to sex or her affections.
The stereotype is of the guy that’s been friends with the girl since they were 5. Now he has romantic feelings for her but isn’t capable of communicating them. She’s oblivious to the hints because she’s infatuated with the captain of the football team. It’s okay though, because after the nerdy friend has a practice montage set to a power ballad he’ll be able to score the winning goal, humiliate the dumb jock, and the girl will realize that their common history and personal connection more than make up for the boy’s acne, lack of social graces and obsession with comic book.
Eventually he’ll go on to start a computer company, she’ll fulfill her dreams of being a famous writer/artist and the jock will end up fat, bald and bagging groceries at the local store. This will all be made apparent at their 10 year reunion when the love birds arrive in a helicopter.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Joe, that is the Nice Guy TM and his fantasy world personified.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Yeah, the real world is usually more complicated. I’d be surprised if the real world didn’t have a lot women that
1. Knew how the nerdy guy felt and tried to ‘let him down gently’ many times without him ever getting it. (please see Brandon Berg’s comments upthread for a possible example of someone not getting it. I’m specifically referring to his conclusion that women dating online are not serious about it. He wrote that’s what they told him but it seems very possible to me that they were serious about it and were just trying to reject him gently.)
2. Thought the arrogant narcissist that had expensive toys and treated her poorly was ‘exciting’, ‘mature’ and ‘confident’. Much to the dismay of the cowardly (shy?) ‘friend’ that kept trying to spark romance with kindness and affection.
That said I dislike the assumption that there’s something generally wrong with women (“Women don’t like nice guys only jerks”) because of the romantic choices they make. Some people probably think the disrespectful guy with a nice car and poor impulse control is worth the hassle.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
When I was in high school, the dynamic was that some passive-aggressive dude would fixate on one of my gorgeous friends, who would know full well about the crush. He would do unsolicited favors that made her feel awkward, but which she felt she couldn’t reject because it would be impolite, so she’d smile and say thank you, and perhaps he’d interpret that as encouragement. She would date someone else. He would summon and express his feelings in a great burst that was supposed to show her the light! She’d say, “I’m sorry, I just don’t feel that way about you,” and maybe pull out hte “you’re too nice” to make him feel better, and then he’d stop ever talking to her and tell everyone what a bitch she was.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Bean:
Because men who murder women are highly atypical. Obviously men who murder (or rape, or beat, or what-have-you) women have power over those women, and they abuse it. But this has no bearing on the vast majority of the NiceGuys who don’t do these things. They have no power over women.
Mandolin:
Not in any sense that’s relevant here. The fact that certain other men in certain other contexts have power over certain other women does nothing for one particular man who in one particular context has no power over one particular woman. Class analysis breaks down at the individual level.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Which is why men and women of equal social rank in other ways speak an even amount of time during conversations.
Or, you know, not.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“If a man’s “sour grapes angst” results in sexist and misogynistic behavior — then he is a sexist and a misogynist, and he is engaging in sexism and misogyny. I don’t give a fuck about his reasons.”
First, there’s the issue of whether or not it even impacts his behaviour, which I’m sure you realized because you hastily addended on a post that addressed it by applying Jesus’ old “committing adultery in your mind” rule. Look, a married man cannot commit adultery with his eyes, and a nerd can’t commit as much sexism as a jock can.
Also, the word “behaviour” affords a very broad range of actions that may or may not support your point. Stalking? Yes. Lashing it out on the next woman he sees? We’re getting there, it depends on the severity of the hissyfit. Ranting about “women only like assholes” on his blog? Using your racism analogy, that’s roughly the equivalent of telling a worn out racist joke.
“allowing them to get away with it because they’re “oh so oppressed” because they can’t get a date is just sexism and misogyny in itself — no one is entitled to a date”
If someone’s rejected because a woman simply doesn’t care for him, fine. But surely we can all agree that, say, still being a virgin when you hit 30 is actually just a teensy bit more serious? I’d wager that its more socially debilitating than being 70 lb overweight, though I don’t want to make any rash pronouncements, at least in this particular case.
“In Animal House, the pretty women were objects of lust. The unattractive women were objects of ridicule.
In Revenge of the Nerds, the pretty women were objects of lust. The unattractive women were objects of ridicule.
In one movie, they were objects of lust/ridicule by the rowdy frat guys.
In one movie they were objects of lust/ridicule by nerds.
In both, they were objects.”
See, my problem with statements like these is that it’s the exact equivalent of saying that since poor people are more obsessed with money than anyone else, the poor and the rich are equally to be blamed for ‘materialism’. There’s a dynamic occuring between the two groups, you know. Nerds and jocks cannot be lumped together so neatly. These people have more to contend with than simply being unable to get “a” date. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Sure, no one has a right to romantic relations. There are many who’d say that no one has a right to free amenities or medical care or basic income, either. As leftists all, I don’t see why the simple inequality of the situation, the belittling of a lesser group and the constant apologies made for the greater one, doesn’t bother you on some level. I’m certainly not advocating government solutions, but at least try to see the situation for what it is. You may not think it is as serious as I do - and just why I do, I’ll explain further down - but just stop and think of this: the basic outline of your equivocation of “jocks” and “nerds” (inapplicable in the adult world that we’re talking about, but the basic archetypes will do) is this: what dominant group X does is bad, but weak group Y would do the same if they were in the dominant position… haven’t you heard this same line of reasoning applied somewhere else? And I thought one of the fundamental axioms of a left-wing agitator for equality’s mind is that no, in the real world the weak group isn’t in the dominant position, and that is whole bloody point.
This all may seem overanalysing and affectatious for a subject that is mainly fodder for water cooler jokes and two-stars-out-of-five comedy movies. But I’m telling you, alienation is the way they get you. The average person today has fewer friends than the average person a generation ago - and I think this trend is far more troubling than the explosion of income inequality over the same period of time. The friendless (wo)man is as ripe a target as the penniless one; it’s like what Noam Chomsky said about the atomization of society and the basic unit of society becoming the individual and his(/her) television set. (And yes, I do collect the bonus points for being the first to tie Chomsky into a discussion about dating.) Many socially inept nerds that I’ve known are so much like microcosms of all the disheartening signs in society as a whole: incredibly self-centered. By most measures privileged, yet harbouring a vindictive core. Often out of touch with reality, preferring a fantasy world it can control. We ignore the issue of social alienation at our own peril.
And I understand that I may sound skewed because my discussion of the loser was framed with assumption that I’m speaking of a man. Women of the same predicament arguably have it worse, so I’ll try to maintain better gender balance from now on.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Mandolin:
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but it appears to involve some kind of overgeneralization. Again, class analysis breaks down at the individual level.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 am
This is a very minor nit-pik, but in “Animal House” the protagonists were not popular, nor were they jocks; they were the outcasts of the greek system. The popular, jock guys were the villains in “Animal House,” not the protagonists.
Also, in “Revenge of the Nerds” the “unattractive” female students are allies (albeit extremely minor characters), and aren’t made fun of by the protagonists. On the other hand, the main characters install video cameras in the cheerleader sorority, and later on one of the protagonists rapes a cheerleader.
This is not a substantive point, or anything. I guess I’m saying that “Animal House” and “Revenge of the Nerds” aren’t especially great analogies to be using for this discussion.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 am
Why is it so hard for you to understand that sexism is NEVER OKAY? Just like there is NEVER an excuse for racism or classism from anyone on any level? Rich, poor, black, white, male, female. This is as unenlightened a view as men of color who feel they can be sexist towards women of color BECAUSE OF RACISM when women of color experience the SAME racism as the men IN ADDITION TO SEXISM.
Again, we’re talking about individuals on an individual level versus class on a class level. A frat boy and nerd will be AS SEXIST to an individual sorority girl and nerd “ally” in Revenge of the Nerds (Thank you for jogging my memory, Amp. That’s what I liked about the movie). Frat boys and nerds are not sexist on a systemic level because they’re young men.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 am
No, class analysis is more likely to break down on an individual level.
Obviously it has affect on individual lives, otherwise you wouldn’t see various rituals of subservience, which you do in fact see.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:03 am
I’ll break it down this way, regardless of how popular the person is or how much sex he’s had, if he treats me like meat he’s just as sexist as anyone else who treats me like a piece of meat. His having things to contend with does not excuse or lessen his giving ME one more thing to contend with. As far as rank in the dominance class, what rung he’s on doesnt mean he’s off the ladder. Your social dominance with other men doesnt change the fact that its still dominant over females as a class and individuals.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 am
So, Sylphhead, your reasoning that nerds, as a class of individuals, can never be as sexist as jocks, is because of the rare chance that a male nerd will still be a virgin (whatever that is) at the age of 30.
That’s about as sexist as it gets. To be specific, it is 100% misogynistic for any male to base his own self image, his own ego needs, etc, on whether or not he has inserted his penis into a woman’s vagina.
No woman’s body should be the litmus test for degree of masculinity. But yet they are. We aren’t things. We’re not unrequited sex acts just waiting to happen.
Or even more specifically, my body is not the tie breaker in the nerd vs. jock pissing contest of virility and masculinity. If the nerds can’t compete with the jocks, I’ll be damned if any woman is chosen as the new playing field and someone claims that isn’t sexist.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Mandolin:
It breaks down in the sense that it’s invalid to say that because men are dominant over women in the aggregate, any given man must be dominant over any given woman. This is no more valid than to say that because men are taller than women in the aggregate, one particular man must be taller than one particular woman.
For the record, I’m not saying that anti-women bigotry by powerless men isn’t sexist. I think it is. I’m just pointing out the problem with the notion that power is an essential component of racism or sexism.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
Loading comment…
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 am
Brandon Berg: what does a power-less man look like in this society? Who is he? What does he do? What and who is his powerless state in relation to?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Nerds can be as sexist as anyone.
But there are male nerds with such low status that they do not have dominant power over any female. They have male privilege, because they’re male, but that privilege does not manifest itself very much in terms of them being able to oppress anyone.
Such nerds can be very sexist indeed, but they are much more often bullied by females than doing the bullying. In that sense, they are “powerless”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 am
Q Grrl: what does a power-less woman look like in this society? Who is she? What does she do? What and who is her powerless state in relation to?
I think this question is rather difficult to answer, in society I am rather powerless, 22 year old white male, unemployed (just finishing uni). I don’t hold power over anyone else, I have no economic power, my only “power” would be from being white and male and young, none of which give me any benefit as an unemployed lower class person. However there are people with less power than me because I can rely on the state, can excercise my vote (however pointless). Its a very difficult question to analyse, a better one might be who ctually has power in this society?
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
uh huh, because all those socially inept male nerds arent dominating the fields of comics, or science to name 2. And in the process of dominating these fields, they dont engage in oppressing females in the same fields through forcing them to work twice as hard to be taken seriously or denial of promotions while other socially inept nerdy co workers get the promotions. And socially inept nerdy men never “get even” with female bullies by *raping* them or anything. And they’ve certainly never been known to use women as a bonding tool with other higher males. Thats just unheard of!
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
“none of which give me any benefit as an unemployed lower class person.”
Except the benefit of being more likely to be hired and the benefit of being paid more than a young white female with the exact same criteria and experience.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Reread the male prievelege list, Brandon.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Chris: it’s not my job to rehash basic feminist theory and reserach. Do your own homework.
Or the slighlty less bitchy reply: Chris, I’m not the one claiming anyone is “powerless”. That would be Brandon. So I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your comment other than your basic drive-by-trolling.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
We’re comparing men and women of the same class, race, sexuality, etc. We are ONLY CONTROLLING FOR GENDER HERE. Males and females of the SAME CLASS AND RACE are unequal based on GENDER.
This is the crux of the Nice Guy Syndrome. It’s the nerds who are the most sexist in the end. Nerdy Karl Rove and his neocon cabal couldn’t get laid in college and took out their frustrations through anti-woman policy. In college, they felt powerless COMPARED TO OTHER MEN not other women. So it’s never about women but homosociality. Comparing one’s manhood and competing with OTHER MEN who are more manly. Women who deal with the sexism of the jocks and nerds are innocent bystanders.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Donna, I certainly agree with the last sentence.
But the rest of this seems overly simplistic, cause-and-effect thinking, seemingly based on just one variable. There are other variables involved, like how hypermasculine Ned and Joe to begin with, how much the friends group they hang out with was all-male and how much the friends group emphasized being masculine, attitudes towards masculinity of Ned and Joe’s parents, and so forth.
I’ve known far too many nerdy misogynists to imagine that being a nerd is a “skip-misogyny” card for wimpy men. But I’ve also known many nerds that didn’t turn out that way; and the scholarly literature is pretty clear on the connection between being in hypermasculine social groups (like some male sports teams and frat houses - note I say “some,” not “all”) and rape for me to buy a sweeping generalization like “nerds are the most sexist in the end.”
Admittedly, I may be feeling a touch of pro-nerd defensiveness. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Going way, way back here…
Would any heterosexual man do this to another man, or even to a woman he didn’t find attractive? At worst this approach treats the woman as a video game/vending machine, at best as a backboard against which to practice your volley until you can find a real person to play with. To say that you’re awful at the game and really, really need the experience doesn’t change that.
Posting this kind of advice in what was intended to be a discussion of treating women as human beings could get a person accused of misogyny.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Lu:
I’m a heterosexual man, and I didn’t find her particularly attractive. The goal was to initiate a conversation, however awkwardly, with a stranger, preferably but not necessarily a woman. I did it, I’m happy about it, I’m proud of it, and my life is better for it. And so, as far as I can tell, are the lives of the women who’ve had the good fortune to meet me this way.
I guess. And at worst your characterizing it as such is a malicious attempt to guilt a hapless introvert into a life of loneliness and misery. But neither of these is a natural or reasonable interpretation.
By the sort of feminist who hangs out in these parts, sure. But that ship set sail long ago.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“By the sort of feminist who hangs out in these parts, sure. ”
Dont let the door hit you on the ass then.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Lu,
I prefer to disagree with Brandon, but on this point I have to agree with his approach — I’d rather be approached by a stranger who made their intentions known than have to guess that the discussion about cat flossing is practice being less introverted. Some people might guess that I floss cats, others might just be making idle chit-chat.
Total strangers talk to total strangers all the time. Back in the early 80’s I took one of those “self-actualization” seminars that were all the rage at the time. Learning to get comfortable talking to strangers was one of our exercises. So long as the conversation is situationally appropriate, I see nothing wrong with it. And by making his intentions known from the outset, if he crossed into inappropriate territory there’s a very comfortable out — “Well, when you’re talking to strangers you should say XYZ. Keep that in mind next time. Good-luck! (exits stage left)”
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“Learning to get comfortable talking to strangers was one of our exercises.”
Move south. You’ll get a crash course via the submersion method and find yourself chatting away with total strangers in the grocery store about crap you’d never think about.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Mandolin:
Again, class analysis breaks down at the individual level. A man may have certain privileges that most women do not (and vice-versa), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he has power over any particular woman, or any woman at all. You can look at specific individuals in a specific situation and analyze how their class membership contributes to the balance of power in that situation, but you can’t know what the power balance actually is without analyzing the specific situation and the unique qualities of the individuals involved.
As I see it, that’s what racism and sexism are all about—the failure to see individuals as individuals, instead jumping to conclusions based on general traits (real or imagined) of the classes to which they belong.
Q Grrl:
That last question is the right one to ask. Power and privilege are highly fluid and contextual; no one is powerless in every situation, and everyone is powerless in some situation. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that NiceGuys are powerless to get what they want from the women they desire. It doesn’t matter how much power they have in other contexts (although they generally don’t have all that much); in this particular context they have none.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Wanting something and not getting it does not make one powerless. The men we’re discussing have other kinds of social power to leverage in the situation.
In fact, the whole nice guy phenomenon is about nice guys meeting one kind of powerlessness — in this case, not being able to get approval from a desired female — and trying to use other kinds of power (derived from gender privelege) to manipulate the woman’s feelings or actions, or others’ perceptions of the woman. This includes trying to deny her choice (saying women don’t know their minds), trying to tap into the slut myth to denigrate her, trying to tap into her socially encoded guilt to force her into a relationship through “kind” acts, and of course what’s at heart — the perception of entitlement (again, gender encoded) to someone else’s body. [This is not meant to be a full list of the ways in which Nice Guys (TM) use their privelege in this situation, merely one that illustrates a few examples.]
Leaving aside class/individual analysis for a moment, this is the heart of the argument. NICE GUYS (TM) are leveraging their MALE PRIVELEGE because of a sense of ENTITLEMENT in order to try to shame, punish, or force certain behaviors, from a woman. That’s an attempt to use POWER.
If that’s not going on, then it’s not a NICE GUY (TM) situation.
Some people, in some circumstances, for some periods of time, manage to neutralize or flip class priveleges. The fact that this occurs does not mean that class privelege is not a good predictor for behavior. It means it’s not a 100% accurate one, but only a guide to probability. In particular, because we are only looking at one dimension here (gender), there will of course be other factors (class, race, abledness, etc.) that will complicate the matrix. Nevertheless, where a NICE GUY (TM) attempts to use PRIVELEGE to manipulate, etc., etc., that’s an example of a situation where gender privelege has been levereged, whatever other factors may also be present in the situation.
I’m sure you already have heard all of this. You’re aware of feminist theory. You have made your decisions regarding what you believe. That’s your choice. But I don’t see the point of repeating a conversation that I’m sure has already been had -with you-, elsewhere. If other people get involved, I might speak again.
Thank you for reading my comments and choosing to engage with them. I cede you the last word or words.
[edited repeatedly for clarity of argument and general fussiness about language]
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Here you are, Hugh
Ta-dah!
http://finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/
http://finallyfeminism101.blogspot.com/2007/03/faq-i-asked-some-feminists-question-and.html
Your question probably covered ground they have gone over many times before, and they didn’t want to derail the interesting discussion they were already having.
People find ignorant questions frustrating, and questioners find being ignored frustrating, and such mutual dissatisfaction can totally disrupt a discussion. By sending you here the feminists hope to avoid being interrupted, yet are also not completely ignoring your question(s).
Maybe you didn’t ask a question at all, but stated an argument that denied the importance of the topic being discussed. Feminists naturally don’t care for the thought of trying to run you through reams of introductory material before you gain the grounding to realise the basis whereby they perceive an important problem where you may not.
Either way, educating you on the basics would derail the discussion about the actual topic the feminists are interested in, just for you. That’s an awful lot to ask of people on the net who don’t even know you, isn’t it?
This blog exists to give you a few pointers to places you can find more information to answer your question (although we’re only in early days yet, FAQs will continue to be added until the basics are covered). Once you are better informed you will be able to contribute to lively feminist discussions productively, armed with facts and theory, even if/when you don’t end up agreeing with all the theories….
Now Read On, as they say.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Oh, that text above should be in blockquotes. It’s Tigtog’s, not mine.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
it is 100% misogynistic for any male to base his own self image, his own ego needs, etc, on whether or not he has inserted his penis into a woman’s vagina.
I disagree that it’s misogynistic. That’s kind of like saying that if your self-image depends on getting celebrity autographs, you’re anti-celebrity.
But it is self-defeating, at least for guys who (like me) don’t get laid much. Once you realize that an orgasm feels the same whether it comes from intercourse or some other way, and the only difference is an ego boost you get from your own value system which you’re free to change, life becomes a lot less stressful.
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
The original post and this thread aren’t about rape. It’s about nerds who hang around women who think women should sleep with them:
As far as the nerds who eventually oppress women on a systemic level, look at all the Republicans behind anti-woman legislation. It’s very clear most of them were these Nice Guys who couldn’t get laid in high school or even college. This thread isn’t about rape. Studies show frat boys rape disproportionately on college campuses but the original post was only about how nerds talk to and hang around women.
This comment was written by Donna Darko.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“That’s kind of like saying that if your self-image depends on getting celebrity autographs, you’re anti-celebrity.”
Its certainly not treating them with dignity or respect though is it? Theyre an object. A goal. Not people.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Two points:
1. Not necessarily. If you have no interest in celebrities other than getting autographs, then yes. But you could also be interested in learning all you can about what they’re like as people. Similarly, you can get an ego boost from getting laid and still be interested in women as more than sex objects.
2. “Misogynistic” means more than just viewing women as objects. It implies an active dislike for them.
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Do we really have to play “your argument is invalid because I’ve decided I get to set the rules for vocabulary, despite established usage?”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Point taken, Mandolin. Let’s just say we disagree about the meaning of the word, and let it go at that. I do think there’s a difference between a guy who just wants sex and a guy who hates women (although of course the same guy can be both), and using the same word for both confuses things.
This comment was written by Rex Little.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Rex Little writes:
A guy who thinks of women as the place where he gets sex, hates women.
You might not think of that as “hating women”, but if you’re a woman and guys keep trying to sex you up, it’s not going to be all that long before women think those guys hate them.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 11:50 am
And a guy who thinks of butchers as the place where he gets meat, hates butchers.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Once again, the women are meat analogy!
1. All women sell sex as a commodity that can be taken home?
2. All sex is a business transaction?
3. A butcher’s human identity is butcher, and not woman or man? Or alternately, a woman’s profession is “woman?”
Also, anyone who thinks women are comparable to meat, hates women.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
People who think meat is a commodity hate cows.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Is that a joke, Robert?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
[Moderator hat on.]
Robert and Brandon, it’s not clear to me if you genuinely don’t understand that “women = meat” metaphors are offensive to many feminists, or if you’re trying to be offensive (a la Larry Flynt’s famous Hustler cover).
But in either case, cut it out now, please.
[/Moderator.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
[Comment removed at moderator request.]
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Robert, I didn’t ask you to explain the purity of your motives. I asked you to fucking stop the “women are like cows” metaphor. If you can’t do that — if you make one more cow joke here — you’re banned from this thread.
Is THAT clear enough for you? Because it seems that my previous “cut it out” request was somehow not clear to you.
I’m not, by the way, saying you can’t disagree with “the original formulation.” I’m saying you have to find a different, less offensive way to do it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Dude, I haven’t compared women to meat.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I and several other moderators believe you did, Robert; however, even if you meant something else and we’ve misunderstood you, the time has come to let the matter drop, please.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
OK, consider it dropped. I’ve removed my response to Mandolin’s discussion of the metaphor.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Mandolin:
Sorry—butcher was the first thing that came to mind. Let’s say “doctor” and “checkup” instead. And we’ll make it a female doctor so we can eliminate a variable.
My point is that someone can go to a doctor to get a checkup without thinking about the fact that the doctor has hopes and dreams and a husband and children and plays cribbage with her friends on Thursday nights, and this doesn’t deny the doctor’s humanity or reduce her to an object. And it doesn’t mean he hates doctors. It just means that he’s not particularly interested in all that other stuff right now—he just wants a checkup. And that’s fine.
Similarly, sometimes people (men or women) just want sex. It’s not that they’re not aware that there are all those other facets to members of the opposite sex—it’s just that they’re not particularly interested in all that other stuff right now. The point is that it’s not necessary to explicitly acknowledge the full spectrum of someone’s humanity every time you interact with them in some limited way. People have these kinds of interactions all the time, and no one (well, almost no one) complains. Unless you have some moral objection to casual sex in general, why treat sex differently?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
[Moderator hat off.]
Regarding the substantive issue here, I do think there is a conceptual confusion here, stemming from different ideas about what the word “hate” means.
(Julie, did you purposely switch back to being FurryCatHerder, by the way?)
Julie wrote:
I think there’s a distinction between “thinking of women as the place to get sex” and “being sexually attracted to women” which Brandon and Robert either don’t understand or are choosing not to acknowledge.
But a more interesting issue, to me, is what people think of as “hating women.”
Consider these two statements: 1: “The hardware store is where I get light bulbs.” 2: “Women are where I get sex.”
If I think of women the same way that I think of a hardware store, is that misogynistic? I think it is. Not because I don’t think fondly of my local hardware story, but because my view of it is strictly utilitarian. When I buy light bulbs, I don’t worry about how the store feels about the transaction; I don’t feel obliged to make sure that the relationship is working as well for the store as it is for me. Maybe if the store’s misery were shoved in my face I’d wish things were otherwise, but the truth is, I just don’t think about the store’s perspective.
That’s a reasonable attitude to hold towards a hardware store. But it’s a misogynistic attitude to hold towards women.
I think the problem here is that most people think of “hate” as meaning active loathing (wide eyes, clenched teeth, balled fists, etc.) for the hated object. But when we’re talking about things like bigotry and misogyny, that may be too narrow a view of what “hate” means.
To use a specific example, I don’t think most rapists “hate women” in the sense of being angered by women, personally disliking women, or actively wishing ill on the women they meet. I think most rapists are indifferent to women. They want what they want, and what the women wants isn’t something they’re interested in.
In the personal sense of the word “hate,” rapists don’t hate the women they hate, any more than shoplifters hate the owners of the stores they rob. It’s not that personal.
But it’s still a form of hating women.
What Julie wrote wasn’t about rape, but I think the same principle applies. Thinking of women as a place, like a hardware store, where you go to get a needed item (sex, light bulbs, whatever) is misogynistic. Not because guys who think like that personally hate all women they meet, but because thinking of women you have sex with, with the same indifference as you think of a store where you make a purchase, is unreasonable and dehumanizing.
At least, that’s how I interpret Julie’s statement.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Brandon asked, “Unless you have some moral objection to casual sex in general, why treat sex differently?”
I think you’re conflating two things which aren’t the same thing at all; “casual sex” and “treating the person you have sex with as indifferently as you’d treat a merchant.”
Casual sex is fine. Treating a casual sex partner the same way I’d treat a doctor is not fine. Because, basically, I don’t give a damn about whether or not the doctor examining me is enjoying our interaction. I don’t feel obliged to watch out that she’s giving me this examination out of a sense of freedom and agency, nor do I feel it’s necessary to make sure that my own behavior doesn’t pressure her into giving me an examination that she didn’t truly and fully consent to give. All I care about is that I get what I want from the doctor (a diagnosis, say).
That’s not an appropriate way to think of someone I’m having casual sex with. That is how rapists think of sex. And it’s how too many non-rapists who are nonetheless abusive towards the people they have sex with — by being manipulative or coercive, for example — think about sex.
Nothing I’ve written here is anti-casual-sex. It’s possible (and good) to have casual sex, in which neither person treats the other with the indifference one has for a merchant.
[Edited to fix wording.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
But it’s a misogynistic attitude to hold towards women.
It seems more a misanthropic attitude to hold towards people. What’s gendered, in any sense, about not treating a person like a store? A credible claim of misogyny, it would seem, requires something anti-woman. What you’re describing is just someone being an asshole - having a utilitarian view of people.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Thanks, Brandon, I appreciate you shifting the metaphor.
I still don’t think woman = doctor is analagous. Doctor is a profession. A doctor is volunteering to be treated in a professional capacty.
Woman is not a profession.
If it’s a “casual sex hookup” site, in some way, then maybe your metaphor is reasonable. People are volunteering, explicitly, to be treated in a limited fashion.
When it’s applied, though, to a female acquaintance, or a woman in a bar, or someone you just met — that’s not okay. It’s not okay to approach a doctor on his own time and demand a checkup, and to ignore the fact he’s having dinner with his family.
However, I also think ther’es a difference between doctor as object and woman as object. There is no doctr porn; doctors are not frequently depicted as being objects. There is porn of women; women are frequently depicted as objects. Doctoring is a skill. Being a woman is an attribute.
Treating the capacity of the doctor to be a doctor is neither, therefore, treating the doctor as an object (you’re interacting with a capacity) nor reducing the doctor to a doctor (you’re interacting with a profession). Treating women as a place to get sex does tend to be objectification (because it’s interacting with an attribute), and also interacting with a woman as a sex-provider when she has not volunteered to be used in this capacity.
So, leaving aside object v. attribute aspect for a moment: it seems to me the correct analogy is either A) treating a woman solely as something to go to for sex is like bothering a doctor for a checkup at midnight, while he’s sleeping beside his wife, or B) going to a prostitute is like going to a doctor for a checkup.
Fundamentally, doctoring is something one does, and (although gender is a performance) being a woman is something one is, and so the two cannot be directly compared without shifting the terms of the metaphor.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I should probably clarify in light of Ampersand’s last comment. I do think that it’s appropriate to call men who act with callous disregard for the welfare of women “misogynists” (assuming that they don’t treat other men the same way), and vice-versa. What I don’t think can appropriately be called misogyny or misandry is a lack of interest in nonsexual interaction with members of the opposite sex.
My perception is that it was the latter that was in question.
Speaking of which, why are so many people here focusing on NiceGuys’ desire for sex to the exclusion of their desire for the nonsexual aspects of a romantic relationship?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“What’s gendered, in any sense, about not treating a person like a store?”
Because women experience, frequently and systemic, being treated by men like stores that provide sex. It’s a shitty behavior, but it’s one that occurs largely in one direction, and which occurs in a context where women have been conflated with sex, and to remove gender from the equation denies that context.
When both women and men experience objectification at equal rates and with equal implications for identity, career, personal life, and so on, then it will be useful to talk about misanthropy. Until then, it’s more useful to discuss the situation as it overwhelmingly occurs.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“Speaking of which, why are so many people here focusing on NiceGuys’ desire for sex to the exclusion of their desire for the nonsexual aspects of a romantic relationship?”
I don’t know. My feeling was that it was the way the conversation went as we tried to address the terms that other people were using in the argument. I don’t even feel like we’re talking about nice guys anymore.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
[Edited to add: Cross-posted with Mandolin's response to Robert's question.]
Robert, quoting me, wrote:
Robert, many people hold this “a store where I get sex” attitude towards women in particular, not towards humanity in general. In those people, the attitude I’m describing is misogynistic.
But I agree that, for example, bisexuals who hold that attitude towards people in general are being misanthropic. I’d add that people who hold that attitude towards men in particular are being misandristic. And it’s bad, and harmful, in all three cases.
However, I think the misogyny version merits special concern, because it meshes so smoothly with our culture’s view of “women as the sex class”; that is, the conceptual view that women hold sex and it’s up to men to wheedle or force women to give men sex. I think this view of men’s sexual role is one reason the overwhelming majority of rapists are male (regardless of the sex of the victim).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
But now you’re dragging in other stuff to make the analogy not work, Mandolin - Brandon didn’t talk about approaching people at inopportune times or places.
Why is it OK to disregard the backstory of a doctor when seeking medical care, but not OK to disregard the backstory of a person when seeking sexual contact?
(I know the answer in my worldview, and it’s akin to what Brandon alluded to: sexual contact is intrinsically personal and spiritual and cannot be casual. But I want to know what the answer is in your worldview.)
In other words, if we’re allowed to depersonalize sex by eschewing romantic connections, and if we’re allowed to depersonalize sex by eschewing long-term arrangements surrounding it, then why aren’t we allowed to depersonalize sex by eschewing interest in the human story of the other participant(s)?
If it’s misogynistic for a man to do the last one, then it would seem to be misogynistic for a man to avoid love or marriage, as well. But I don’t think you believe that - so what’s up?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Being a woman is not a profession.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Amp, what you say about men who treat women this way makes sense, and you’re quite right, that would be misogynistic when it isn’t symptomatic of the way a person treats everybody.
However, I think the misogyny version merits special concern, because it meshes so smoothly with our culture’s view of “women as the sex class”; that is, the conceptual view that women hold sex and it’s up to men to wheedle or force women to give men sex.
It ought to merit special concern because it involves people treating other people as objects, which is morally wrong. The conceptual view is largely accurate, albeit is only half the picture. I’d like to have sex, which for this sentence is defined as having an orgasm inside a vagina that belongs to a person who wants me to do it. That pretty much means that women hold sex as far as I’m concerned.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Brandon wrote:
Okay, I’m glad we more or less agree on this.
I’d call that misogyny if the person in question is interested in nonsexual interactions with men but not women.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Okay, I’m going to take you slightly more seriously.
“But now you’re dragging in other stuff to make the analogy not work, Mandolin - Brandon didn’t talk about approaching people at inopportune times or places.”
Brandon used the category “women.” Not “women who have asked for casual sex.”
“Why is it OK to disregard the backstory of a doctor when seeking medical care, but not OK to disregard the backstory of a person when seeking sexual contact?”
Because, unless a woman has specifically volunteered for casual sexual contact, she is not putitng herself in a position where it is appropriate for her backstory to be ignored. A doctor who is in business is advertising professional services, and consenting to such interaction.
“(I know the answer in my worldview, and it’s akin to what Brandon alluded to: sexual contact is intrinsically personal and spiritual and cannot be casual. But I want to know what the answer is in your worldview.)”
To be precise, I gave it earlier.
“In other words, if we’re allowed to depersonalize sex by eschewing romantic connections, and if we’re allowed to depersonalize sex by eschewing long-term arrangements surrounding it, then why aren’t we allowed to depersonalize sex by eschewing interest in the human story of the other participant(s)?”
I didn’t say we weren’t. If you’ll notice above, I said that it wasn’t unreasonable for men to seek casual, objectified sex as long as the women and men are in a situation where that’s the expectation. To treat the broad category “women”, or a woman who has not specifically agreed to this, as an object for sex, is a misogynistic act.
Again, This is not like being a doctor, because being a woman is not a profession.
HOWEVER, the culture that promotes the objectification of women who have not agreed to it, that promotes the objectification of women more than it promotes the objectification of men, and that otherwise creates women as a sex class who have fewer opportunities for interaction in which their sexuality is not judged and involved — that is a misogynistic culture! Culturally, broadly, the objectification of women is misogynistic. Men, as a class, are NOT objectified in this way.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I broadly agree that the objectification culture is misogynistic, and that we objectify women much more than we do men, in a sexual context anyway.
Because, unless a woman has specifically volunteered for casual sexual contact, she is not putitng herself in a position where it is appropriate for her backstory to be ignored.
Check me on this, but isn’t this the Nice Guy complaint? That women are ignoring his backstory, and not dealing with him as a person?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“Check me on this, but isn’t this the Nice Guy complaint? That women are ignoring his backstory, and not dealing with him as a person?”
No, I don’t think so. The nice guy complaint that I think you’re referring to is that she’s dealing with a kind of person (asshole) who she shouldn’t be dealing with, and dealing with the nice guy in a way (as a friend) that she shouldn’t be because of how he acts (nice).
However, there are a bunch of nice guy complaints, I think.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
The Nice Guy complaint I’m referring to is the complaint, by the putative Nice Guy, that women aren’t treating him the way he want/”deserves” to be treated. Similarly, in #275, Mandolin seems to state that men aren’t treating women the way the women want/deserve to be treated.
In both cases, the treating party is acting in the pursuit of their own interests/desires, and not assigning much if any value to the interests/desires of the other people involved. In the case of the Nice Guy Vs. Those Misguided Women, the objectionable treatment is having the “wrong” parameters for selecting sex partners (”you should fuck me, not him”). In the case of the Fully Realized Human Woman Vs. The Sex-Seeking Guy Who Doesn’t Care About Any Of That, the objectionable treatment is having the “wrong” consideration for whether she is seeking casual sex or something more (”you should care about what I want”).
The commonality I perceive in these cases is that the women who reject the Nice Guy for sex, and the men who don’t care whether the women they’re talking too are interested in casual sex or something else, are both working from internal value systems that do not require them to integrate the thoughts or feelings of other parties into their deliberations. Jane doesn’t care that Joe is a nice guy who wants her; Jane likes to fuck bikers and tough shit for Joe. Joe doesn’t care that Jane is interested in a long-term relationship; Joe likes one-night stands and tough shit for Jane.
Updated to note: I don’t have much sympathy for Joe or Jane. Joe isn’t entitled to have other people change their parameters for his benefit. Jane isn’t entitled to have other people change what they are looking for for her benefit. Joe can reasonably expect that women he approaches won’t point and laugh and throw drinks at him; Jane can reasonably expect that men whose casual-sex interest she detects and rejects won’t rape her. But they aren’t entitled to have other people’s thinking change for their benefit.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2007