« Women, age, and the Oscars --UPDATED | Main | My new hero »

February 08, 2005



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

Plus, they're suffocating.


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

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

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


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

What next? Did feminists invent FGM?


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

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

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


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


Hugo's post is right on point. Three comments:

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

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

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


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

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


"Pro-feminist men are gay".

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


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


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

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

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


That's generous of you, joe.


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

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

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


"in "clearing the air" can you really expect persons to take you seriously talking about feminism"

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

I'm not going to comment further on this.


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


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

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

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

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

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


"I'm asking not to have my opinions dismissed; there's a difference"

Hugo, whoever said that your opinions were being "dismissed"???


"Apparently, only people who pretend they've never done one hurtful thing, and don't work to make amends, deserve respect."

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That pathology applies to a majority of young females today.

Thanks Hugo for sharing that.



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

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

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


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



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

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


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

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

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


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

But anti-feminists don't like that word "patriarchy" one bit, do they?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004