…a lie by omission…

…so by now, you’ve probably seen tons of references to Nice Guys ™ around the gendersphere…

…how come you don’t see Nice Girls ™ at nearly the same rate???

…alright, long story short, a guy hangs out around a woman, he helps her out, he listens to her. He NEVER expresses explicit romantic interest. He winds up in what those reddit guys call The Friendzone…

…now is this guy being manipulative or is he just too shy to escalate, to “make a move”?

…depending on who you ask, you’ll get a different answer…

…some will say it is the woman who is being manipulative when she could sense he was attracted to her, he wanted more than just platonic friendship. She kept him around because that shoulder to cry on was too good, that unpaid mover was just more utility than a girl could ask for…

…some will say the guy was being manipulative for not clearly expressing his romantic interest. Some will say it is the man’s job to make romantic interest known and anything else is manipulative…

…now let’s go a step further, why, exactly is it the man’s job to escalate? Is it because he has higher testosterone? More “privilege”? More tolerance to pain and thus rejection?

Fuck if I know, I’ve asked and I don’ know if it is cultural-that is society sets things up so that women are less likely to feel pain. Or if it is biological-that is men have, on average, higher libido’s and the hungrier (hornier) one has to do the asking…

Now, I’m gonna take this on another tangent-feminist dating advice

…allot of things that seem to come up are…

…brush your teeth, wash your hair, stop being creepy, bitter, socially awkward…

haha, as far as the first two, yah, good hygiene is good, but uh, I’ve come across some drum circle type ladies that wouldn’t put it that high up on the list…

now creepy-I don’t know who is intentionally creepy except for haunted house actors and actresses…

…as far as bitter-yuppers, anger is offputting, no argument there. However, how come femmies constantly call angry womyn empowered? Aren’t they dehumanizing men by telling a guy who may have had many traumatizing experiences to not be angry about it?–to just fucking GET OVER IT MAAAN… If you’ve ever had the misfortune of visiting the slimepit that is The Good Men Project where a bunch of asshats talk down to real living men and censor their comments maybe you know where this is headed. The vibe of that place seems to scream your pain isn’t real, so just get in line, shut up and be a good man–be fucking useful, stop whining. If you can’t take it, go to therapy so you don’t become an abuser, and if you don’t have the funds to pay for therapy well, you need to man up. And if you can’t do that, just kill yourself but please make it look like an accident, we wouldn’t want to make the greater good (women) uncomfortable when they find the body of someone they assumed was “privileged” offed themselves because their suffering was unbearable. How dare you upset anyone you filthy, filthy boy…

…now that I got the little rant out of my system-here’s the lie by omission…

The feminist dating advice rarely talks about what it’s like to be an initiator. Shit, you’d be better reading some sales manual about cold calling—-rejection motherfuckers… That. Shit. Stings. Now, you can read an article by Clarisse Thorn where she says she didn’t like initiating because she didn’t like getting rejected. Funny though, and maybe I misunderstood everything I’ve ever read by feminist’s. They talk about being able to work as “privilege” even though I hate my job. But by this metric wouldn’t (het cis) women hitting on (het cis) men be one of the most feminist things they could do? How come they aren’t lining up for that role in droves? Is it because, while they complain of the “glass ceiling” they don’t clamor for equal representations in the “death professions” where men FAR outnumber women?

Now, I’ll step back for a second. If your world view is that of say a traditional conservative where men and women have strictly different roles and they are inherently different, it causes you no cognitive dissonance to say “A man should be President and a woman should be a homemaker. Women shouldn’t be sent to die in defense of the homeland. That’s a man’s job.” If that is your worldview, you’d probably laugh off concepts like male disposability and believe that those who take greater risk should have a greater chance at success. You’d probably consider a man who whined about not being able to get a date a weak loser who shouldn’t have the chance to pass on his genes. You’d have no problem with a phrase like Real Man…

Alright, now if you branded your movement as being about “equality” then things wouldn’t be so clear. You couldn’t just expect one gender to stay stuck in one role while giving infinitely more freedom to another gender. You’d probably have to go on and on with mental gymnastics about how the gender stuck in the same role was “privileged” even when the evidence was that so many members were not. You might even try to create a Marxist like dichotomy of oppressor class vs. oppressed class divided along gender lines. You’d probably have to go through a bunch of mental gymnastics to make your ideas sound like the right ideas. You’d probably have to shout down anyone who disagreed with the vilest shaming language you could. You’d probably have to create caricatures of arguments and attack those instead of the actual arguments they made. That doesn’t sound like anyone we know, now does it? Import flashing SARCASM button from the fatuous Manboobz bigot….

So why do feminists hate Nice Guys ™ so much???

That’s the million dollar question…

8 thoughts on “…a lie by omission…

  1. “So why do feminists hate Nice Guys ™ so much???”
    Answer: Les “Nice Guys” c’est les autres.
    Explanation: If a man builds an emotionally close relationship with a woman, one day he asks her to perform oral sex on him and angrily breaks off the relationship, when she refuses, so that the woman is hurt; then he is a “Nice Guy”
    If a woman builds an emotionally close relationship with a man, one day she asks him to perform oral sex on her and angrily breaks off the relationship, when he refuses, so that the man is hurt; then he is a “Nice Guy”

  2. They hate nice guys because their existance shows thier hypocrisy. Feminists claim they want nice guys who respect them, so when you HAVE ONE and no girl wants him, the hypocrisy is evident.

  3. The most important thing to point out isn’t just that feminists hate nice guys… They hate lots of trivially negative things.

    The thing that doesn’t make sense is the *disproportionate* hate leveled at nice guys.

    I mean sure, feminists WILL write an article listing a set of reasons why nice guys are “not-ideal”. They will actually list things that we can admit are “flaws” (when comparing someone to perfection I mean).

    Now, let’s for ignore for a second the fact that most women on this planet have these same flaws, and they are never bashed and mocked as “nice girls TM”. Let’s ignore that double standard for a second…

    What’s really astounding is how disproportionate the negativity, bashing and vile hatred toward nice guys is (in proportion to) the “flaws” which are claimed as the “reason” for feminist hatred toward “nice guys tm”.

    It’s so obviously over the top, that anyone with two braincells to rub together can immediately gather there must be ANOTHER (un-stated) reason for the hatred of nice guys.

    I believe the leading theory is that feminists hate nice guys because they speak up about, and call women out on women’s hypocrisy and lies, and that is the number one anti-female sin one can perform.

    How do we know this? Feminists only hate a nice guy after he publicly voices discontent with having been lied to by women. If feminists hate Joe for applying a passive dating strategy as claimed, how come they don’t bash Joe until and only after he complains that this strategy doesn’t work for men? (not to even mention, how come they don’t bash women, who in much larger proportion apply passive dating strategies)

    The research is there too

    According to the paper “Courtship Behaviors, Relationship Violence, and Breakup Persistence in College Men and Women” by Stacey L. Williams and Irene Hanson Frieze…

    “[M]ales perform more approach, or regular courtship behaviors, whereas females are more likely to perform acts of surveillance, that is, attempts to make indirect contact with the love interest by way of (seeming) serendipity.”

    Get that? Women are the ones more likely to engage in passive mating behavior. In fact, I’d personally say that’s all women do, being the lazy spoiled daters they are. But how come when men apply this strategy they are “broken and flawed nice guys TM” whereas feminist stay silent and all you hear is crickets on the topic of female passivity (indirect mating behaviour).

    Feminists say that performing passive mating strategies is a character flaw. If you as a man are continually trying to find ways to be around a woman, hinting at interest, pretending to care about her interests etc etc… well then you are “flawed” and “deceitful” for not stating your intentions clearly and making a move.

    By that same logic pretty much every woman on the planet would be deemed deceitful, even if she doesn’t take it to the extent of plausible deniability, which most women DO.

    1. I actually believe that many women get “friendzoned”-however being friendzoned isn’t a failure of femininity. It is (arguably) a failure of masculinity-that is if you buy into the “man-up” BS that a man is supposed to make his attraction shown. My belief is that feminist’s know on some level that it is hypocritical for them to say that everything men can do women can do, but then pick one area and for no defined reason say it is men’s duty to take the risky initiatives. (When they do that, you have an awful article like Clarisse Thorn’s over at TGMP.) I believe the Nice Guys cause them a ton of cognitive dissonance and they can strike out at them because of the inherent misandry in society. Now, I still don’t have this puzzle unraveled but…

    2. “Feminists say that performing passive mating strategies is a character flaw. If you as a man are continually trying to find ways to be around a woman, hinting at interest, pretending to care about her interests etc etc… well then you are “flawed” and “deceitful” for not stating your intentions clearly and making a move.”

      They go allot further than that, said guy is potentially a “creep,” “stalker,” “rapey,” etc etc…

  4. Here is my theory:

    Feminists have a lot of innate preferences and values that don’t accord with male/female equality. They work hard to somehow fit their prejudices into feminism and somehow explain them away. What prejudices you ask?

    1) A prejudice against male weakness – this is why they hate nice guys. Its not uncommon for women to hate weak men and historically its always been true that weak men have been hated by both men and women. Feminists have no good way of justifying this prejudice…hence nice guys.
    2) A protective feeling toward females – this is in large part why feminism has been so incredibly successful. It has always exploited the biological desire to protect women on the part of both men and women. Notice that no protective feeling exists on the part of men. Ask yourself a question..when was the last time you felt protective of a man?
    3) The view of men as lustful sexual predators and women as dainty things that need to be protected from sex – this isn’t biological…its societal. Most Christian societies have always had a problem with sex and have generally been anti-sex. There are related beliefs here like the view that men are “using” women when they have sex wit them. This explains why feminists demonize male sexuality and often try to protect women from sex with men

    1. Three very concise observations there.
      And oh how right you are (sadly).
      To paraphrase a quote by John Kenneth Galbraith on conservatism: ‘The modern feminist is engaged in one of humanity’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for prejudice.’

      Prejudices aren’t always incorrect; but the more arbitrary and self-serving the prejudice appears, the more glaring the hypocrisy of its proponents seems to be. Hannah Arendt (rightly, I believe) called hypocrisy “the vice of vices” because the hypocrite’s crime is that they bear false witness against themselves.  

    2. I don’t buy it. I don’t think there is any prejudice against “weak” men, and I think the Western obsession with being “weak” is pathological and at this point extremely harmful. It’s what drives the over the top behavior of game – the fear of being “weak”, with the end result that game behavior is not masculine but pathologically over the top.

      In Asia, the most attractive men would be considered soft and highly feminine in the West, and in fact refinement and “softness” in men is both highly prized and highly cultivated, and highly appreciated by women. There is no “innate” female hatred of “weak” men, there is just a pathology of the modern West where people feel ambivalent about civilization and have a strange attraction to behaviors that have their roots in our barbaric, pre-civilized past. I for one am utterly mystified by this Western – and make no mistake, it exists only in the Wet – fetish for barbarism and discomfort with the virtues of civilization – gentleness, kindness, and refinement. To me, those are the best things in life, it makes life in a community so much more enjoyable, and this absurd striving after a barbaric “virility” makes no sense, and produces these grotesque caricatures of masculinity that are just papered-over insecurity, like in Heartise/Roissy.

      And in fact even in the modern West women really DO respond to genuine sociability – they DON’T prefer the anti-social barbarian. That’s an utter myth. Being genuinely nice IS attractive to women – it just isn’t sufficient on its own. You obviously have to be good looking or have status or whatever.

      But we need to get over this retarded talk of “both men and women hate “weak” men”. This kind of nonsense talk is not just untrue, but harmful and leads to pathological overreactions by mean desperate to not appear “weak” – I would say to all men, stop being so afraid of being “weak”! – and an absurd “macho” culture as well as strife and rancor between the sexes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s