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

February 08, 2005

Comments

Jeff

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

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

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

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

Obtestor

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

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

Obtestor

Hugo Schwyzer

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

Jeff

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

Obtestor

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

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

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

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

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

You know, a normal, sane family guy.

Obtestor

cmc

Uh, at the risk of steering this discussion off course, I want to respond to Obtestor's reference to the "domestic violence racket."

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

Hugo Schwyzer

True, Jeff.

Let me try this amendment:

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

emmy

"you implied he's a fake and a fraud."

That's your interpretation of what I said... not actually what I said.

"I'm mystified as to why you post here"

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

Obtestor

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

Absolute nonsense.

Obtestor

zuzu

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

Sheelzebub

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

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

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

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

Obtestor

But there is no "domestic violence racket."

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

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

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

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

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

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

The feminists in the DV industry have done exactly that.

Obtestor

Sheelzebub

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

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

Obtestor

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

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

Obtestor

Hugo Schwyzer

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

Obtestor

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

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

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

Obtestor

bmmg39

I've several comments to make here.

"4. Pro-feminist men are filled with self-loathing."

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

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

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

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

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

bmmg39

"And plenty of Christians can be a little, um, overenthusiastic about Paul's asexuality at times."

Not that there's anything wrong with asexuality, mind you...

Jeff

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

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

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

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

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

emmy

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

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

Ron O

"Nice guy" is a useless insult.

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

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

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

Sheelzebub

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

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

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

Sheelzebub

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

Yep. Me too.

typhonblue

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

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

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

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

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

Need proof?

Political Correctness in the Men's Movement

Obtestor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are trying to make it appear that it is.

Obtestor

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004