The History of Nice Guys
Dear readers,
I am suddenly in Boston, still exhausted from 23 hours in planes and airports. In two days I begin teaching at a prep school here, all the way until I return to Irvine in August. I’ve been trying to keep current through wireless, including dealing with my old laptop dying and needing an heir. I just posted an academic piece on Barthes, Hugh Kenner, Freud, and Rousseau over at The Valve, in which I tried to put modernism together with the origins of trauma theory. It’s about knots, scars, and the opera. Meanwhile, over here, I thought I’d respond to LittleLight, who asks her readers whether any of them were ever Nice Guys™, and how they recovered from it, so we can do a better job with the next generation. (This is also my way of giving a quick nod to Taking Steps, which is as thrilling now as it was when it burst onto my feeder with “the seam of skin and scales.”)
(I’m going to capitalize Nice Guys, but skip the trademark henceforth, because it’s annoying.)
The term Nice Guy shows up a lot on the feminist blogosphere, and there is a certain amount of confusion about what it means. It’s not just that new readers show up and need a primer; it’s that people occasionally take it in overly subjective directions. (In addition, the suggestions I’ve read for how Nice Guys should behave are mawkish and unreflective.) Nonetheless, I bet that it will not only survive online, but migrate offline into the vernacular. It simply describes a certain kind of awkward and contradictory Western masculinity too well. The craigslist post that LittleLight pointed to is now a broken link. When it was working, it was a nasty letter from a guy to some woman he apparently helped home when she was drunk. The guy railed at her for being indifferent to his services, for having no sexual interest in him, and for having gotten so drunk in the first place. Strangely enough, he announced that had he been a “Bad Boy,” she would have had lots of sex with him. LittleLight writes:
Were you ever, even for a brief, stupid, youthful period, a Nice Guy(tm)? How did you get over it? What do you think would work toward nipping this stuff in the bud when it comes to teaching our young men not to slip down that slope?
Arguably, my answer to this question is “yes,” although “brief” doesn’t fit. Nice Guys are guys whose approach to women is a mixture of fear, passivity, eager interest, deference, and misogyny. According to them, their whole worldview has been invalidated by a lack of girlfriends, and their basic attitude tends to go like this:
I’m a decent person. I should have a girlfriend by now; I want one very badly, and I do all the things women say they want. I’m extremely respectful and I believe in good conversation and gender equality. However, women clearly do not find respectful conversational partners sexy, which makes them hypocrites, and proves that I need to re-think the way I act around them.
I’ve wanted to write a post about this phenomenon for awhile. Like my Buffy post, it’s going to step on the toes of my upcoming sexuality posts, planned for August. C‘est la vie.
Nice Guys start out as guys with no confidence. Confidence is one of those terms, like intelligence, that gets used in mystifying ways; I mean that, aside from family and a small group of friends, Nice Guys believe that most people will find them unlikable and boring. They believe this because of how they failed on the playground and at school, and the reasons they failed are bad reasons, as is the fact that such painful “failure” is possible at all. Some Nice Guys are disabled or unattractive. Some are nerds. Some are minorities. Some are naturally shy. Some are young. Some simply went through a bad move or series of moves. At first, they got treated badly by a lot of other guys. Most Nice Guys I’ve met have a very specific relationship, not (at first) to Bad Boys, but rather to Golden Boys, the athletic and popular kids who seemed to get friends, girlfriends, and status the way you get presents at Christmas. At colleges where some of the population joins fraternities and sororities, and some does not, this crystallizes as hatred of “frat boys,” and as the phenomenon of toadying within frats.
Once Nice Guys reach puberty, a bunch of things happen at once. First of all, they discover porn, which is full of fairy tales about adventures (and “kinds of women”) that could and should somehow come true. Through this, through discussions with friends, and through the movies, they catch a glimpse of what is supposedly happening for the Golden Boys. It’s not just about sex — they want girlfriends. It’s not just an overheated wrong guess — they really are staying virgins while other guys awkwardly start rounding the bases. At a certain point, the Nice Guy suddenly decides that middle school is over, the Golden Boy image is attainable with practice and money, and they should get back in the ring and try to reverse the judgement of early childhood. Suddenly, they start talking about “alpha males” while simultaneously calling “frat boys” assholes. Part of the reason Nice Guys earned their name is that they call themselves “nice guys,” because they’re obsessed with the saying “nice guys finish last.”
Meanwhile, the Nice Guy is forming relationships with women that are something else entirely. They’re not sexual relationships, they’re friendships. The guy spends a lot of time talking to his female friends — a mixture of women he takes for granted, one of whom is guaranteed to have a crush on him, and women he secretly likes — and hears a lot about sexual relationships that aren’t working out, and about crushes, and about the rest of their lives. These friendships are astonishingly earnest; for everybody involved, a lot is painfully vulnerable, and a lot is scripted like a sweet film. His female friends share with him diary entries, favorite records, dreams and ambitions, cigarettes. The Nice Guy comes out of this experience with a lot of respect for assertive, strong women, but that doesn’t fit with his new plan to turn into a domineering id.
That’s why Nice Guys and Men’s Rights Activists show up at feminist sites; they’re still troubled by everything about those friendships that was so rewarding, despite constant sexual frustration. They also want revenge — the horns of this dilemma produces tons of contradictory thinking. The Nice Guy is being pulled in one direction by his female friends, and in another direction by the thought of waking up one morning, Gregor Samsa in reverse, transformed into James Bond or Jim Morrison.
For now, that’s where we have to leave our Nice Guy, stuck between a busy but Platonic social existence, and a bunch of fantasies that can go very wrong indeed. (Little has been said about the homosocial and homoerotic aspects of Nice Guy masculinity. It’s all there in A Separate Peace. Nice Guys have cannibalistic crushes on Golden Boys, for example, despite being usually straight.) LittleLight asked how we could keep our young men from that slippery slope. That’s putting it in a too-fatherly way; still, here are a few thoughts.
First of all, Nice Guys feel lonely, but the truth is that they’re not nearly lonely enough. They rarely spend enough time introspecting about what they really want, what they like and dislike, and what interests they care to pursue. As a result, they’re not very challenging in conversation. They’re followers, and that’s boring. They also imagine that they can only be satisfied by the kind of woman who would go out with a Golden Boy, which often means chasing after women with whom they have little in common. Being undiscerning, they become corny, humorless, and weirdly anachronistic. Nice Guys, including the jerk from LittleLight’s post, can suddenly start to wax about finding “a lady” in these fallen times.
Second, the fundamental assumption of a Nice Guy — I want a girlfriend — just isn’t true a lot of the time. Everybody values privacy and freedom, and Nice Guys value it even more because it’s mostly what they know. A lot of the panic Nice Guys feel when they do get close to a kiss or a shag has to do with the perceived threat to their own habits. If I could send them all a copy of “I No Longer Know Anything,” by Trembling Blue Stars, I would do so tonight. A very good evening to you.
Do I only think what I did
Was a stupid thing because
I did not get what I wanted
Or would it have been no matter what?
What if something had happened?
Would I still have fallen apart?
What if?
Would you have pushed her right out of my heart?
Is there something I don’t want to face?
Might it not have been seen a mistake?
What if something had happened?
Was it over anyway?
Does she cast such a shadow
Because she hasn’t been followed yet?
Would she do so
If someone walked in her footsteps?
Am I right to feel such regret?
This is somewhat belated (I made a comment about Elliot Smith a while back that I had entirely forgotten about) but thank you for appreciating cokemachineglow.com. Looking at the fan e-mail we receive one may believe that we shanghai musicians, then sell them as slave labor.
So — encouragement is edifying!
And I hope to comment on this wonderful post in a more direct manner after work today.
You are on to something.
I’m not sure if this post really works, Joseph. It has a lot of generalizations / instant analyses, and I don’t know whether they really apply. Actually, I question the usefulness of the whole category, especially since you seem to be saying that it covers both your youthful self and the guy who posted the ad.
First, as an example of alternate explanatory stories, let’s see whether the whole thing can be subsumed into classism. You have your archetypal Nice Guy talking about “alpha males”. That indicates a certain level of education right there. OK, white guy is in or makes it to middle class, feels entitled to rewards including objectified sex and the social status of having a hot girlfriend. So far, so familiar. It’s not that I really think that everything is due to classism, it’s just that there are so many possible narratives to hang this generalization on that I don’t see the utility of picking one out.
Or, looking at it another way, “Greg’s” quoted ad isn’t really a rescue fantasy, it’s a not very veiled rape fantasy; of course most women wouldn’t want anything to do with him. Are most of the “youthful, stupid” Nice Guys really not supposed to figure this out about themselves? You’re right that a certain introspection deficit seems involved. But is it really typical? If you want to write about your own experience, that’s fine, but I question whether it is really that similar to “Greg’s”.
Rich,
To begin with, your comment about generalization is understandable, and represents an issue that I’m still working out for myself. I wouldn’t generalize unless I had certain specific experiences/pieces of culture in mind, but I think I’m led to generalize more often nowadays because, as a reader of blogs, I encounter a great deal of generalization that successfully sparks discussion.
Of course, an alternative approach would be just to tell my own story, as you suggest. To me, that loses something. This isn’t just my story; in fact, it’s not even mostly my story. It is an amalgam: friends I’ve known my whole life, people I met a week ago.
If it’s close readings you’re looking for, you’ll find them in the upcoming posts. I should point out, though, that pop culture (e.g. The Rules) also treats gender and sexuality in extremely generalized terms, so the close readings will be close readings of archetypes.
Greg (from craigslist) is hugely different from me in terms of his language, attitude, and behavior. However, I think it’s possible to imagine (without excusing) the kind of rage and confusion that prompted him. A lot of the Nice Guy posts I’ve read emphasize the capacity for violence and rape. My post was less about Greg than it was about trying to take the conversation past the repeated, obvious point that women do not have to have sex with anyone, no matter how hurt, confused, and lonely that person might be. As you suggest, I think most non-psychopathic people do figure that out on their own.
I don’t think this is a white phenomenon. However, I do think it has roots in class; if it didn’t, it would hardly make sense to talk about fraternities and the people who hate them. “Alpha male,” though, is the sort of pop psychology phrase that bounces around everywhere.
Cheers, CPE!
I agree that it’s good to get past the obvious point that women do not have to have sex with anyone. There’s just a danger in “However, I think it’s possible to imagine (without excusing) the kind of rage and confusion that prompted him”. People can imagine whatever they want. For instance, I can imagine that the difference between Greg and most men who at some time blame women for not liking nice guys is that Greg is acting out a fantasy of making women feel uncomfortable, and that, in fact, the typical “Nice Guy” who one sees posting this kind of thing on a feminist blog knows full well at some level what the reaction will be. Maybe they aren’t “still troubled by everything about those friendships that was so rewarding”, maybe they’re griefers — sociopaths, more or less. In which case an extended characterization based on various friends who don’t in fact show up on feminist blogs and be clueless or write angry messages on craigslist just doesn’t apply.
Pingback: Unintentions « Is there no sin in it?
Joseph — I think the sort of generalizations Rich laments are actually pretty negligible here. The idea of reducing the Nice Guy to a prevalent cultural phenomenon inherently *requires* generalizations, right? How are we to proceed, that is, if we can’t generalize certain categories of male experience/behavior/neurosis/identification?
That said, I hope to hear more about Nice Guy’s ill-fated attempts at romantic relationships. I think you’re dead on with your analysis of Nice Guy’s small circle of female friends, and I also think you’re on the right track with looking at Nice Guy’s perceived inferiority to Golden boy or the alpha male.
I do think Rich has a good point about some of this being rooted in classism, as you’ve already acknowledged, but there’s also something to be gained in looking at this in terms of Nice’s Guys family dynamics and cultural expectations.
Admittedly, I myself am a recovering Nice Guy, and much of what you say hits uncomfortably close to home. But it’s oddly therapeutic as well.
Looking forward to the follow up post.
I guess that I should have emphasized more the parts of the post that I thought were quite good, but they’re the same parts that make it problematic. That’s one of the things that skilled writers do: they create narratives. I think that my core problem with this narrative is that it leads to statements like yours, Mike S, when you say “I myself am a recovering Nice Guy”. Really? Did you actually behave in the way that the people held up as examples behave? If there’s one thing that I don’t think is in short supply for typical commenters on these blogs, it’s introspection. There’s an element of denigration of one’s past self in order to build up one’s current self that, analytically, blurs the boundaries between groups of people that seem to me to be dissimilar.
I was never a Nice Guy. I was, briefly, in a group called DC Men Against Rape. This involved a sort of self-indoctrination as attempted intervenor into guy conversations that denigrated women in one way or another, and I certainly ran into people who had some of these kinds of attitudes. In my limited experience, I didn’t think of the people with the “busy but Platonic social existence” that Joseph describes and the people who would make statements about how women owed them sex as being along the same continuum. Which is not to say that the first group was safe and the second dangerous, but they really did seem like two different groups, the second being characterized by very little actual social contact with women. I think that people can usually tell when someone is the kind of person who thinks that his friends owe him sex, and they don’t usually “share with him diary entries, favorite records, dreams and ambitions, cigarettes” etc.
Pingback: No Mister Nice Guy « Sunlit Water
Hmmmmm . . . this post, and the linked posts that prompted it, disturb me but I can’t quite figure out why. It has something to do, I think, with our perception that there is such a category/”state” of reality called Nice Guy(tm), at least insofar as some people perceive themselves to be such and other people are willing to analyze that state of affairs and/or “person.” We’re engaging in cultural stereotypes, of course, while also simply capitulating [in Joseph K.’s case] with genuine intellectual curiosity and soul-searching, but I worry [a lot] about how all of this buys into certain “flat” characterizations. More tomorrow, after some sleep.
I think it is a Fun Post and an Interesting Topic, even if the analysis is not yet all worked out. I would love to get to the bottom of this Nice Guy TM issue, though, because I think it would be very revealing about society in general.
My hunch is that these Nice Guys TM are caught in the expectations and judgments of patriarchal society (which doesn’t do anyone any good, really) and chafing against it, but suffer from not having a full view of what is going on.
They are different from actual Nice Guys, who are simpler – they are Nice just by not screwing people over. But the Nice Guys TM are potential Not Nice Guys
who, nevertheless, would rather not be Not Nice but then again … are not quite sure about that.
In the Nice Guy TM phenomenon, there is a certain dose of Fear of Sex, a pinch of Fear of Intimacy, and a large dose of (quite rational, but not well articulated) Mistrust of the Implications of Expectations of Traditional Relationships.
Nice Guys TM tend to come from religious or otherwise moralistic backgrounds, in which you Respect Women, and yet also do not Question Patriarchy.
These are my own incompletely formed thoughts on the matter so far.
I’m gonna throw in my two cents on the inappropriate generalizations and essentializing of this Nice Guy category. While “nice” can be used as an accurate descriptor, I don’t think 1) you can accurately make all of the assumptions that you’re making or 2) that Nice Guy is a static categorization.
Rich,
Certainly there is a difference between ordinary disappointment and frustration, and the willingness to violate another person. I’m not keen on creating distinct groups — and you seem likewise hesitant to do so — and I think some of this confusion goes back to the way the term is used on the blogs in the first place.
On some blogs, Nice Guys are like the guy in the craigslist ad, one bad night short of doing something terrible. On other blogs, they’re just whiny presences in the comment threads. On still other blogs — and I think this bleeds into the rest of the conversations — they’re guys who are in a state of embittered near-hysteria about a series of romantic rejections, both online and offline. The aim of my post was to talk about that last group of guys, without making exaggerated claims about anybody being a danger to society, or understated claims like “these are just griefers.” (Which would also set up some kind of psychological theory of Internet personas that I haven’t vetted.)
Eileen, Feminist Review — if you do have time, say more. As much as I would like to turn utterly particularist, and either tell my story or no story at all, I don’t think generalization is impossible here. Our society does have mainstream versions of machismo, and the lack of machismo, and the self-conscious discussion of machismo, and personal experience becomes as universalized as these discourses. No doubt every personal, real experience with “courtly love” looked a little different; still, it affected and partly structured the lives of many, many people.
One other example: I would have no problem generalizing about backpacking trips through Europe, even though people (who can afford it in the first place) do have divergent experiences going through that rite of passage.
Profacero — I was amused that you extended the practice of capitalization. I think you’re on the money when you mention Nice Guys with patriarchal leanings.
Joe, as I noted at Teo’s place, the one problem I have with this conversation is the elision of the difference between online and offline persona. I don’t think you can make the leap from high school bullying to online victimization; at the very least, I don’t think it can be causative. I was bullied, had mostly female friends, &c., but I’m not a Nice Guy online (and, as those of you who know me off know, I’m quite an ass).
First of all, I have to say that, although I _hated_ A Separate Peace in high school, you’re on to something there and you’ve actually made me appreciate the book a bit more.
Second, I agree with the people who say the figure of the Nice Guy ™ should be historicized and nuanced further, of course, but there are interesting bits in the post and the comments about this split between fantasy and actual behavior, what the Nice Guy ™ _says_ and what he actually does, and the Nice Guy’s behavior on line and in actual face-to-face interactions.
The Nice Guy seems to be eaten up with _ressentiment_. This figure appears to complain constantly about what he is entitled to and how he is being misused, particularly in online comment situations. But what does he _do_ in “real life”? Does he carry out these threatening actions or actual rape? Or does it stay at the level of the verbal, of fantasy? Does he gain _more_ pleasure out of these hostile online interactions than an actual fight or encounter in person, which carries more risk? I mean, would the Craigslist ranter have ever actually tried anything (and run the risk of her fighting him off or police action), or was he mentally composing that post and savoring a delayed revenge during his whole “rescue”? (BTW I’m not so sure that rescue fantasies and rape fantasies are so far apart — definitely not in the porn narratives)
Joseph: “I think some of this confusion goes back to the way the term is used on the blogs in the first place.”
I agree, but in the sense that I don’t find the way in which the term is used in the first place to be very helpful. It’s good to characterize the group that you’re describing more closely as “they’re guys who are in a state of embittered near-hysteria about a series of romantic rejections, both online and offline”, but that’s not how the group was originally defined. It was originally defined by pointing to specific texts and saying that they were representative. In other words, “Nice Guy” takes a behavior and turns it into a population. I like something like “concern troll” better, because no one therefore thinks that concern trolls are necessarily concern trolling their way through life — it’s describing a pattern of behavior as such, without a larger person-centered label.
But there is an already used behavioral term that is in some way related to this — pity sex. Isn’t that what the Nice Guy is really demanding?
Classism is right, but not in the way Mr. Puchalsky suggested. This is the feminist version of the tendency some hard leftists have to denigrate the vaguely counter-cultural art and mores that lots of ordinary working people have an interest in as “petit-bourgeois”, *in favor* of *echt* bourgeois things like classicism. There’s a rationale, but underlying the rationale is the fact that these “rebels” are really much better educated and even snobbier than your average middle manager.
Similarly with the slow decline of some elements of the patriarchy: some liberated women, installed in once-denied positions of power, have opted to act like the Grey Flannel Organization Men the right-thinking once derided as sad and noxious — and this Nice Guy is the contemporary version of a “frigid bitch”, whose problems and reticence complicate the swingin’ time others could be having.
This is a defect of the virtue of an equitable workplace, sure, and some defects (like the violent phantasy the decidedly non-nice Craigslist poster engages in) don’t have virtues. But the sexual arena is always going to have have-nots, and I think disparaging the inclination of wimpy non-starters to treat others with a (sometimes forced) modicum of respect and decency — because there are no points on it for their social superiors — is a dubious service to the sisterhood as a whole.
A quick note to say that I’ve commented over here, at the terrific follow-up discussion happening at teofilo’s place.
As for the thoughtful comments showing up here, I’ll do my best to respond tomorrow. Thanks again to all.
Sisyphus,
I think the concept of ressentiment is a very apt way of describing the way that Nice Guys try to be both different from and the same as the other guys they envy and scorn.
My guess is that the majority of Nice Guys merely fantasize, plan, and talk big, rather than committing crimes or changing dramatically. In all likelihood, getting comfortable in their own skins would suit them better, and make them happier, but that would mean giving up on the fantasy. Great point about the sinister element in rescue fantasies.
*
I see both Rich and SEK as arguing for separately designated online phenomena that aren’t linked back to life stories. To paraphrase what I said over at teofilo’s place, if there is a split between what happens online, and how a given person lives their life, then that is precisely the kind of self-division I was trying to describe in this post.
If the point is just that you can go through some of these experiences without becoming bitter, and looking to lash out, I completely agree. Thank goodness, right? Presumably, there are a number of ways out – reading about feminism, having good luck, a crisis of conscience, other sources of contentment, a personal philosophy or code of ethics, and so on. Even a personal set of beliefs about etiquette might suffice.
I’m not sure what’s accomplished by sealing off the blogosphere. “Concern trolls” exist offline, too – for example, they believe strongly in “non-partisan” or “bipartisan” politics. The blogosphere is actually a terrific microcosm of the ways that ideology structures perception, behavior, and community. Also, I question the level of involvement that’s possible if you act as though Feministe, Faux Real Tho, etc. are only talking about online behavior (comment threads, etc), when they’re clearly not. It ends up being de facto agreement with a whole spectrum of claims, not all of which are (in my view) constructive or well thought-out.
Finally, I want to note the tension between behaviorist and developmental (perhaps even “structural”) systems of interpretation. From a certain point of view, the only thing to say about passive-aggressive, misogynistic commenting is that it’s an unwelcome behavior, and should be avoided / deleted. From my point of view, this (like calling somebody an “asshole”) can prevent useful discussion of why such problems come up in the first place.
Quick clarifications: my discussion of bullying actually starts a long time before high school. At that point, caste and associated behaviors are pretty well established. Also, I don’t think Nice Guys want “pity sex,” at least not consciously; I think they want not to be pitiable.
*
Jeff,
I am really having trouble scanning what you wrote. As far as I can tell, it comes down to criticizing “some liberated women” for supposedly oppressive behavior, something I haven’t experienced and would be completely unwilling to assume. If such ironies exist, they are the result of competition and hierarchy, not the result of liberation.
Trying to make the Nice Guy into a victim of man-hating feminists isn’t going to fly. All the behavior we’re talking about is understandable; little of it is acceptable. A website like Feministe isn’t victimizing anybody for being a certain kind of guy. (Quite the contrary. Does this even need to be said?)
Guys who refer to the “sisterhood” come off as antagonistic.
When I say I’m having trouble with the rest – I don’t understand the role of “classicism” here. Are we talking about the aesthetic category of classicism? A love of Plutarch? Nor do I understand your position towards “wimpy non-starters,” but that could be taken in a very patronizing way.
I suppose, every once in a while, contempt for Nice Guys starts to sound like contempt for niceness, and that’s too bad. Usually, it’s not the niceness that’s the problem. It’s either that people are being very polite while defending offensive positions, believing that being “nice” is all it takes…or that the niceness is part of a bait-and-switch – a fragile veneer.
Well, I tried to include a couple of nice distinctions, but I guess the import of them might not have been totally apparent. “Liberated women” is intended to cover women who, whether or not they explicitly describe themselves as feminists, are full participants in the liberalized public sphere. Although explicit feminists are in some respects a breed apart, I can only assume their theories are intended to be ecumenical enough to include this larger group as a “target market”.
The problem with viewing all members of such a demographic as victims of creepy guys hiding under cover of niceness is that it makes a hash of real facts about who’s in charge of what. From my personal experience in this decade (not a totally reliable guide, but what I am saying is surely within the realm of possibility) I’ve had non-allusive sexual overtures from two women who were almost direct supervisors of mine: one had been a direct supervisor with quite unhappy results, and the other one was going to be in the foreseeable future. I didn’t go along with one and did go along with the other, but since it mattered in quite material ways what these women thought of me, and not the other way around, I think solely considering my internal life would be a pretty weak support for explaining the dynamic.
Other than that I myself am this stereotypical “Nice Guy”, but I can’t help but think that this sort of self-pimping is implicitly one of the live options for guys for whom no partner is readily forthcoming — one that perhaps appeals intellectually and otherwise to “well-connected” people with an expansive vision of appropriate behavior more than to the average woman. I think the latter would prefer a more defeatist attitude on the part of the seriously single, which would clearly also require a less openly antagonistic attitude to such luckless people than the “Nice Guy” discussion manifests.
Furthermore, I think these sorts of options are already familiar to some, judging by how many women are seeing themselves in the Nice Guy type. So I guess that’s a leveling of the playing field. But, by the same token, such parity shows an existential tension about whether these are good choices is not totally an epiphenomenon of male privilege.
P.S. If you don’t understand the application of “classicism” to leftists, I am talking about people who emulate Lenin’s high regard for Beethoven and distaste for Mayakovsky. This sort of acceptance of the principles of *Bildungsbuergertum* effectively meant the acceptance of aesthetic classicism in the sense in which it was exemplified by say Goethe, so I don’t think I misspoke.
Jeff,
OK, I understand what you’re saying about Beethoven vs. Mayakovsky via Lenin, and could link that up with underestimating Whitman, Henry Miller, and Jack Kerouac (among others) because they’re too “sloppy.” But I can’t put that together with this conversation yet.
Nobody’s suggesting that anybody be responsible for the behavior of others. If you’re claiming that you were sexually harrassed by women with power over you, then that’s one thing. I’m unqualified to judge that, naturally. I don’t see how it relates to a discussion about Nice Guys.
In your third paragraph, you seem to be saying that we can either focus on some kind of “work” of self-improvement, in which case romantically unsuccessful people appear lazy, or we can disavow such projects and just feel sorry for people who are romantically unsuccessful. While I like the larger dimensions of this point — it is true that self-made people can be unreasonably callous — I’d point out that “self-pimping” is an inherently miserable paradigm. In my post, I tried to suggest other kinds of work (e.g. by referencing introspection) that make more sense.
While I’m happy to see where a discussion of women-as-Nice-Guys might go, I haven’t found the crossover narratives too compelling, as yet, largely because I haven’t read that many women insisting, in the same whiny way as the guys, that their fantasies come true.
A quick note: I do think that pity sex is relevant, because whether the Nice Guy wants to be seen as pitiable or not, pity sex is essentially what he’s asking for. (I think that “obligation sex” essentially translates into the same thing, since there’s obviously no actual obligation.) That translates behavior as seen from the guy’s point of view into behavior as seen from the woman’s point of view.
The “leftist classicism” bit was intended as a sociological observation, of a group I thought people would have an easier time visualizing. I guess you either know such people or you don’t, and I repent of the comparison.
I am suggesting people are responsible for the behavior of others (for some suitably non-Kantian value of “responsible”): it seems that it would be a pretty poor rhetoric of motives that didn’t allow the possibility of such influence. For what it’s worth, I was *not* saying that I was sexually harassed in a “classic” sense: these were intelligent, attractive women I wanted to talk to, even if I was unwilling to fly out to stay with one or somewhat discomfited when one invited herself to spend the night. But some sexual maneuvering was occurring on a power gradient that didn’t favor me: and this, I think, is perhaps more common for the “Nice Guy” than a framework built around concepts like “pity sex” allows.
Now, I don’t view the general context of such choices as alterable, and as I said if these more nearly resemble women’s options than more patriarchal narratives that is in itself good, but “self-pimping” was intentionally a miserable paradigm: I personally don’t believe, for reasons other than prudishness, that some choices contribute to a magical journey of self-discovery. But I think that a mission to reclaim the interiority of dissatisfied men, rather than bright-line limits on what is acceptable behavior, is a patronizing and presumptuous goal which actually writes in a lot of traditional *andreia* as desirable, a judgment I am doubtful of for “homosocial” reasons. Basically, I would prefer not to have to *cherchez l’homme* in such cases.
I have no idea what Jeff is talking about, except that he also is seemingly comparing some aspect of his experience to the Nice Guy’s.
The core thing that I think is wrong with this Nice Guy narrative is illustrated by the way that people attach themselves to parts of it. Or attach parts of it to themselves. There’s something, to my mind, decidedly unwholesome about this. Whatever else he is, the Nice Guy is also a jerk. That makes self-identification with the narrative either a hidden agreement, or a triumphial up-from-jerkdom; as I wrote before, the denigration of one’s past self in order to build up one’s current self. Of course, if you actually did act that way in the past, then it’s perhaps best to confront that. But “act that way” is undefined; people are willing to identify their past selves as Nice Guys while disavowing actually doing anything that demonstrable Nice Guys do.
Joseph has built an interesting and sensitive picture of a certain type of boy or man; a person who has many relationships with women as friends. I’m not seeing the necessary relationship to the Nice Guys actually seen. Sure, some men turn out to be harassers (taking that as an example, not characterizing all Nice Guy behavior as harassment). But a thread in which guys start to say “Yes, my background is a lot like the background of these harassers, although I’ve never actually harassed anyone” — it’s too much like a hidden recursion of the Nice Guy phenomenon, identifying with the reflected glamor of the bad boy.
Jeff,
I do know such people (i.e. sticklers for certain markers of aesthetic authority), but I don’t think feminists are similar to them.
I think the notion of Nice Guys as disempowered by women has all the facts against it, and I would point out that the feminists I admire do not think of men as solely responsible for sexism. It’s a society-wide phenomenon.
Abstract “bright-line” limits on behavior do not exist when it comes to sexuality, which is why we have the “reasonable person” standard. Writing a genealogy is not the same as a project of reclamation.
It makes it difficult for readers if one substitutes “andreia” for “manliness,” and “cherchez l’homme” for “uncovering the men responsible.” I’m sure you would prefer not to look for the masculine reasons for masculine panic, and perhaps you would also like to ditch traditionally male attitudes like self-discovery and assertiveness. If so, I cannot join or corroborate you.
***
Rich,
I’d point out that, in effect, you’ve cut off both options: you’re against the “self-help” narrative of change and the defense of the status quo (i.e. the return of Nice Guy behavior). One of those two narratives is likely to appear whenever somebody tries to value their past, and in my opinion, judging the past is better than tepidly resigning oneself to it.
However, I share your discomfort with exaggerated narratives, and there’s no point in creating opportunities for bad faith. This has been a great thread, but I am looking forward to switching gears.
From what you’ve said, it seems improbable that you do know near-orthodox Marxists with time for Alexander Pope but not X-Ray Spex: Lukacs, or Frederic Jameson in some of his moods, would represent a very rarefied echo of the on-the-ground phenomenon. I have nothing interesting to say about an inclination to “classic” style as a general aesthetic standpoint; what I was saying would only make sense as a comparison against the background of someone’s orientation to the needs of the proletariat being carried out by recourse to the highest of high culture. Again, I see the example is genuinely not an easy “read” for people with limited experience of far-left milieux and I don’t wish to carry it any further.
What I would like to do is dispense with “gender roles”, be they bigoted and constricting or open and enlightened, and consider the problem using a rhetoric of parity or equality. To quote Blake:
What does man of woman require?
The lineaments of gratified desire.
What does woman of man require?
The lineaments of gratified desire.
This is not in any way to deny that there are structural problems with the way wealth and power, or even harder-to-quantify social goods like safety, are distributed between the sexes. But I don’t think a fully enlightened version of these social relations would be that of an encounter between “true”, non-“nice” masculinity and true femininity, ending in perfect accord: I think it would allot agency, and the power to help or harm, to each group equally — an in-principle equality that could be cashed out into a in-fact equality.
To convert an old slogan (although you complained the last time I did this), I think affirming a radical notion that women are people would really require a realistic sense of narrative about women’s ability to be full agents, ranging over all the possible qualities of human beings, good and bad. Then we can talk about ways in which these potentialities are hindered in practice — and I do think there are some clear ways in which it is not okay to do such hindering, the supposedly “ambiguous” character of sexuality notwithstanding.
P.S. I think it would be a crime against language to translate *cherchez la femme* as “uncovering the women responsible” rather than leaving it as a piece of stock French, and so I stand by my attempt at a witticism. *Andreia* I care less about, although I think the standards for accessibility in this format should be lower than they have traditionally been for print writing, since perplexing items can always be searched for.
“I think it would allot agency, and the power to help or harm, to each group equally — an in-principle equality that could be cashed out into a in-fact equality.”
Indeed! And while we’re at it, how about an in-principle equality between the rich and the poor, one that could be cashed out into an in-fact equality—in which, presumably, everyone has equal power to buy goods, influence the political system, etc. All of this focus on the abuse of the poor by the rich and the “class system” only reinforces the existing structures and prevents us from recognizing the equal agency possessed by the poor. Let’s skip the inequality chapter and get right to the part about equality.
I love that Blake quote, here’s another favorite:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” —Anatole France
Sorry to draw out the thread, but:
“I’d point out that, in effect, you’ve cut off both options: you’re against the “self-help” narrative of change and the defense of the status quo (i.e. the return of Nice Guy behavior)”
is exactly right. I don’t believe that people really change, in terms of the basics of their personality, from adolescence on. If someone was a jerk then, I think it’s best for them to accept that they pretty much are a jerk, lifelong. But that doesn’t mean that they need to behave as one. They can learn how to behave appropriately, contrary to their inclinations, just as many autistic people (for example) can learn social interaction. It’s the difference between behavior and mindset that allows for the possibility of change. The problem with the self-help narrative of change is that it implies the possibility of wholesale replacement of the self by a better self, and therefore gets people away from the important questions of “what was I actually doing then” and “what am I actually doing now”.
OK I have thought about it. “Concern troll” is good term for a certain type of online character. Narrative of change, sounds like it is largely about getting older / more secure? But IRL, maybe there are four types:
Nice: fun, real, responsible.
Nice TM: wants to be a Rake but isn’t up to it. Compensates by being Nice TM but people see through it, this is the problem. Asks for pity sex, yes. Does not understand why women will sleep with Rakes and not them, but it is because they are closet rakes anyway but not fun enough or good looking enough to be worth taking the Rake Risk for.
Rake, Mark I: Harmless really, as long as you realize
he is a Rake and do not expect Nice. Much more fun than Nice TM because does not have all of the Nice TM tensions.
Rake, Mark II: evil, the type to avoid.
I think this is a really good post, although I view your comments on introspection as being on shakier ground. One thing I suspect to be true, but haven’t seen discussed yet, is that Nice Guys as you describe them are at high risk of getting involved with an abusive woman, in much the same way that some kinds of women are at risk for getting involved with abusive men. Then their very real abuse experience leads them to draw additional conclusions about gender relations that turn them into the next stage after Nice Guy, perhaps proto-MRA?
I know you’re so over this thread but I just have to highlight my amusement at this statement:
I don’t believe that people really change, in terms of the basics of their personality, from adolescence on. If someone was a jerk then, I think it’s best for them to accept that they pretty much are a jerk, lifelong. But that doesn’t mean that they need to behave as one.
Hilarious! You don’t actually tell people with whom you interact this, do you? This would not go over well in, for example, a classroom situation. Heh!
With all the exclamation points, I have no idea whether Sisyphus is being ironic or not.
But ironic or not, I don’t see what it has to do with the classroom. Does anyone really believe that their students come out of their class with different personalities than when they came in?
Rich, it was genuine amusement —- I’m imagining what would happen if you stood up in front of your classroom and told them this. (“You’re a jerk and will be one lifelong, but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to behave like one.”)
Of course, that brings up an interesting point about identity in terms of “personality” vs. “behavior.” If you “are” a jerk but nobody knows because you have learned to behave with manners, are you really a jerk? The same thing with the Nice Guy phenom —- is “Nice-Guy-ness” attached to behavior, to thinking, to fantasy? If you actually treat people decently but are inwardly seething with resentful entitlement, where does that put you on the Nice Guy scale? (BTW, I don’t want to give up on the idea of change, though I would agree that it is difficult and near impossible — therapy can work, but it’s a hard row to hoe.)
The behavior would have to be deep and thoroughgoing, not just an act or surface personality, for the jerk to convert to nice guy just by acting marginally OK or marginally legal.
I thought of something else: Many abusers actually present as Nice Guys TM … until they go psycho. That is another reason why women, in the absence of an actual Nice Guy (not TM), will go for a Rake Mark I … there, you know you’ll get peccadillos, but not worse, whereas with a Nice Guy TM you have to be a sort of therapist, *and* he may get utterly weird.
“If you “are” a jerk but nobody knows because you have learned to behave with manners, are you really a jerk?”
I don’t think that one can ever really learn a behavior well enough to duplicate it as it is done by someone who doesn’t have an inclination against it. A good observer will always be able to tell the difference over a period of time.
The key is to learn to behave as well as you can and then find a socially acceptible redirection — at best, an affirmative use — for the rest. Given that the typical Nice Guy seems intellectual enough to be able to discuss feminism to some extent, one that realizes that he’s been acting like a jerk, and who wants to use this willingness to act out of a feeling of resentful entitlement, might make a good lawyer.
In politics, people who aren’t making affirmative use of their shadow-side tend to burn out. (Vaguely left politics, that is. The right-wing people are completely enveloped by theirs.)
Rich,
This theory, now that you’ve elaborated on it a bit, is almost identical to Carl Jung’s theories of individuation and the “Shadow.”
Unlike many academics, I have no problem with this theory. It makes better use of the “dark side” than Freud (if that sounds like Star Wars, it’s because of Jung > Campbell > Lucas), and it involves a great deal of introspective “work.”
I will make one observation. What we determine to be someone’s “dark side,” the center of their repressed and sublimated impulses, is heavily tainted with social judgements grounded in mediocrity. For example, we tend to class aggressive impulses as “dark,” while applauding (real) niceness and ignoring the fact that real niceness can be grounded in masochism, anxiety, cowardice, and a host of other unseemly attitudes.
The negotiation between impulse and circumstance has to be conceived holistically, and not divided beforehand into good (expressed) and bad (sublimated).
profacero,
I’m thoroughly amused by these notes; how on earth does one distinguish between Rake Mark I and Rake Mark II? Where do such terms come from? If they’re uncommon terms, how can we possibly assume that other people “know” and refer back to them? Why would we even put these different kinds of guys into some single, larger “Rake” category?
Finally — and this touches slightly on my comment to Rich as well — what is there to stop the Rake I (um, this sounds a bit like a land cruiser) from becoming the gravitational center of the system? I know that you start out with “Nice: fun, real, responsible,” but by comparison that sounds both dull and a little optimistic (fun? really? compared to a Rake?).
Sisyphus,
If you actually treat people decently but are inwardly seething with resentful entitlement, where does that put you on the Nice Guy scale?
Makes one a bit of a ticking time bomb, no? I come across guys like this constantly, and I always watch them for signs of an impending freak-out. I don’t mean people who are decent, I mean people who mistrust themselves and thus continually defer to others.
I think your point about the classroom is apt. If we were to stand up and tell our students not to expect to change, ever, except through greater self-policing, the whole point of English class would be socialization. I don’t know what will affect my students, and I certainly don’t think it will be me, personally. I assume a book could affect them that way, and that’s why it’s worth lingering with books, with them.
I thought of mentioning Jung, but I haven’t seriously studied him.
In the end, I don’t think that the location of the division between dark side and not-dark side is that important. The classical idea around this division is that you can only sustain yourself by using or integrating both sides, whatever they are, so which is which doesn’t matter so much.
“If we were to stand up and tell our students not to expect to change, ever, except through greater self-policing, the whole point of English class would be socialization.”
I missed this one before. Isn’t the point of English class to teach students English (however defined?)
I’m not one of those conservatives going on about the Canon, or anything, but I really don’t understand even the framework of the pedagogical dispute hinted at. When I was teaching science classes, there really wasn’t any idea that we were teaching socialization, much less anything that would lead directly or indirectly to personality change or behavioral change.
“I assume a book could affect them that way, and that’s why it’s worth lingering with books, with them.”
And if not, it wouldn’t be worth lingering with books?
I missed this one before. Isn’t the point of English class to teach students English (however defined?)
Well, yes, but then everything would depend on the definition. In works of literature, people change, including people long past adolescence. Characters who don’t change are very often condemned for it, either by the author or by the places their lives end up. I’m not out to sell students on the idea that they have to change; these are not Anthony Robbins seminars. But I don’t see how you can teach English without a belief in human freedom, any more than I can imagine teaching science without a belief in human reason.
This is looking like such an inward model that the real lives of individuals are being completely left out of account. It certainly affects people to spend their whole lives as scientists, and good early experiences with scientific education can awaken that ambition in students. You don’t need more than the assumption that students will grow up to choose their lives (as best they can), and that it will matter if that choice involves significant experience with literature.
It’s the same thing with the jerk example; if a person stops being a jerk, their friends, their habits, and the nature of their experiences all change. It would be very odd indeed to suggest that all of these changes remain superficial.
And if not, it wouldn’t be worth lingering with books?
Not really. Not fiction books, anyway; which is why I meet so many people who read mostly nonfiction.
“In works of literature, people change, including people long past adolescence. Characters who don’t change are very often condemned for it, either by the author or by the places their lives end up.”
Well, it is fiction after all. Characters in fiction do all sorts of things: often, unusual things. It’s also pretty standard that fiction embodies methods of social control, such as the condemnation of people who don’t change in socially approved ways. It used to be that characters were condemned if they didn’t find God. Now they’re condemned if they don’t grow.
I also don’t see how human freedom is implicated here. I think that people are free to change in certain ways, although I think that the ways in which they can change are limited. I’d say that you believe the same thing; the difference is one of degree, not one of kind. If you want to stick to a literary model of personality change — well, Freud (for example) certainly influenced a lot of fiction, but that doesn’t make Freudian ideas necessarily true in a scientific sense.
Finally, I generally prefer fiction to nonfiction because the aesthetics are usually better. I’m not Dan Green or anything, but I do think that a core element of literature is being dropped in this description. There’s a sense in which your description of English is pre-Theory and post-Theory at the same time. For instance, you refer to “a belief in human reason” for science. Isn’t the Theoretical trend in science studies towards science as social activity, rather than as product of reason? If you want me to take belief in human reason seriously, don’t you need to take the aesthetic justification for literature more seriously?
“I’m not one of those conservatives going on about the Canon, or anything, but I really don’t understand even the framework of the pedagogical dispute hinted at. When I was teaching science classes, there really wasn’t any idea that we were teaching socialization, much less anything that would lead directly or indirectly to personality change or behavioral change.”
Oh, but I’m _all_ about teaching as behavioral change, and I tell my students this: I’m teaching you to take the assignments seriously and to value doing quality work, to manage your time and turn things in when you are supposed to, to not plagiarize, whether accidentally or by buying an online essay, because it is unethical. I may not be explicitly teaching them “my values” in terms of who they should vote for, but I am definitely teaching them new behaviors (some of which really do stick).
And there I get back to behaviors/habits: if a messy or lazy person learns in my class how to be organized, and does it from then out, is s/he still messy “on the inside”? If the Nice Guy(tm) learns to not nag women for sex and constantly whine about his lack of a love life, is he still the Nice Guy(tm)?
*
I assumed the Rake Mark I was the Bad Boy, and Rake Mark II a sociopath. I always preferred Guys who Are Nice to either these or the Nice Guy ™, because they have actual interests and hobbies.
*
And Joe,
“Makes one a bit of a ticking time bomb, no? I come across guys like this constantly, and I always watch them for signs of an impending freak-out.”
This is scary (not to say it’s not true). One quality of the Nice Guy(tm) is that he’s so recognizable; you can tell, despite the fact (maybe because) he’s constantly talking about how nice and deserving he is, really, he’s not worth it. But a time bomb in disguise who I have no clue is a time bomb? Ick.
Rich, in response to Joe’s point about changes in fictional characters, you say:
“Well, it is fiction after all. Characters in fiction do all sorts of things: often, unusual things.”
But surely you can see the difference between saying that (esp. “unusual”) and saying this:
“I don’t believe that people really change, in terms of the basics of their personality, from adolescence on.”
It’s one thing to say that people don’t usually change at a fundamental level, which I think plenty of people would agree with; it’s another thing to state categorically that people never “really change,” and that when fictional characters change it’s merely a pleasing but fantastical illusion. (Implicitly, that’s an argument against any kind of mimetic property of fiction.)
So, I mean, say that if you want, but at that point we’ve gotten pretty far from the original topic, seemingly all so you don’t have to concede a debating point.
tomemos, my impression was that Joseph wanted to get away from the original topic, so I feel no guilt for diverting the thread.
But I don’t see the force in your reading of a supposed, implicit, never. Maybe there’s a few people who do change in this way. There are a few people who win the lottery, too, but I wouldn’t tell poor people to buy lottery tickets. Fiction in which people change dramatically is generally about lottery winners, so to speak.
And yes, I do think that it’s generally a pleasing and fantastical illusion, much like the lottery. Fiction shows people as we’d like to think that they are, not as they “really” are (whatever that means). People in our society want to believe in the possiblity of fundamental, personal change, and that belief paradoxically makes it harder for people to change in the ways that are actually much more likely to be possible for the vast majority of people.
“I’m not Dan Green or anything […]”
Speak of the devil. The comment thread here appears to be related.
I’m entirely in favor of the aesthetic justification for literature. If, on the other hand, the aesthetic is to be reduced to a means of passing the time enjoyably, it’s not really the aesthetic.
I’ve made this argument quite a bit over at the Valve, and honestly I’m a little surprised to be making it again. I’m not sure making it again is a great idea. Yes, I understand that people like reading books. I also like reading books. There’s no need to assume that therefore books cannot do anything else.
Sisyphus is right on the money here (as was tomemos). We’re not going to be able, in a blog comment thread, to estimate how many people are changed for the better after reading Dickens. Furthermore, there’s no reason to act as though close reading, pleasure reading, love of lyricism, and so on are segregated from who people are and how they act. If it appears that way, it’s only because they’re so saturated with other kinds of art (e.g. movies) that we’re not experiencing armies of young Werthers. Armies of Seth Cohens or Godfathers instead.
The best way I can put the paradox is like so: my arguing that literature has real-world efficacy is something that could very easily cannibalize my blogging, forcing me to do a lot of straightforward writing, which would prevent me from doing the more risky writing that I feel would justify a blog. Just as there will always be something ridiculous about professors who are paid for work they consider frivolous aesthetic pleasure, there will also always be something ridiculous about an at-will blog dedicated to defending the power of literature with the sort of prose that reaps cash and signatures at MoveOn.Org.
A lit blog without rehashes of “what is literature good for”? The union will be contacting you with a complaint.
(Really, no need to do it if you’d rather do something else.)
“at-will blog dedicated to defending the power of literature with the sort of prose that reaps cash and signatures at MoveOn.Org.”
Woah woah woah! don’t be throwin’ away the cash quite just yet; if you have ethical problems with MoveOn-levels of cash I’d be glad to collect the money for you.
The financial director of your literary activism site, so to speak. (Heh!)
“…how on earth does one distinguish between Rake Mark I and Rake Mark II? Where do such terms come from?”
I invented them for purposes of this discussion but I think women would get it. Rake Mark I, problematic enough not to take seriously, but still fun; Rake Mark II, scary. Actual Nice is always more fun than Rake – since when is problematic fun? not to me… – but Rake Mark I is more fun than Nice TM who, as we know, is a lame and disguised version of Rake Mark I or worse, Mark II.
Pingback: Why the “Ode to the Nice Guys” Is Complete Crap
Hi, interesting post. Did you ever write the follow-up?
“Second, the fundamental assumption of a Nice Guy — I want a girlfriend — just isn’t true a lot of the time. Everybody values privacy and freedom, and Nice Guys value it even more because it’s mostly what they know. A lot of the panic Nice Guys feel when they do get close to a kiss or a shag has to do with the perceived threat to their own habits.”
Interesting interpretation. I’d argue the following. The whole problem seems to be rooted in a deep seated feeling of inadequacy in relationship matters, a lack of confidence the “nice guy” is actually likable as a person (sexually).
They don’t like themselves for who they are although they may like, as you mention, what they have made of themselves, but aren’t able to sythesize the two things. Their approach to relationships is accordingly one of achievement, less of being or connecting (If I do x, y will happen).
But this backfired when they’re actually getting close to “it” because they realise they really want to be loved not because of what they achieved but what they *are* and don’t believe anyone could love that because they don’t. They wouldn’t want to go to a party that actually invites them.
That said, I am a little apalled by the way this thing is usually handled on feminist sites or even by guys “who have grown out of it”. It recreates the social hierarchy that is at least part of the original problem instead of explaining how and why this is the wrong way to look at things in the first place (even though I admit it’s difficult to do since everybody went to school and was probably scarred in one way or another).
HH,
Yes, I did — it’s called “I’m McLovin’ It: Sexuality in the Age of Advertising.”
I think the real problem with nice guys is people. People are the problem because they keep giving nice guys conflicting and misguided advice. Most people think of nice guys as some frustrated virgin that clings to unrealistic fantasies. That is a stereotype that is only based on half truths. If people want to give nice guys advice then they shouldn’t based their advice on stereotypes seen in movies. Furthermore, people continually give nice guys bad advice. They will tell the nice guy to have more self worth and value themselves more. However, when the nice guy begins to believe that he (or she) deserves same respect and enjoyments as everyone else; he is then called self indulgent. Nice guys are also told to conform to the so called jerks or golden boys. This is extremely bad advice because it compromises their individuality. The solution to this nice guy problem is to not try to solve the nice guy problem. People should let the nice guys figure out their problems for themselves.
I am truly terrified by a great many of these comments. The inability to actually empathize with men who have these problems is astounding. Learned Helplessness is usually the cause of this problem, if a man never succeeds at having the “typical” experience of dating, participating in multiple relationships whether sexual or not enforces the negative mindset of constant failure. Nice Guys are the way they are, because that’s how they’ve learned to survive, to cope with a world that they do not understand whether through isolation, abuse or neglect.
As a “recovering Nice Guy” and I have attended dozens of therapy sessions and I am still learning to cope with the fact that both men and women talk a big game about respect and decency, but truly show the hatred they have towards their fellow man by taking it out on the perpetual victim. I was never allowed to date and was punished for having sexual thoughts about women from both my parents and my peers. I was a “pervert” per my parents and a “loser” by my female peers. I learned through the interactions with other people that I “wasn’t good enough” and had the idea that I was a loser reinforced by many people through-out my life. I have only now been able to even try and enter a relationship with a woman, I had my first “girlfriend” at age 29, and the girl was 19. I am constantly reminded by my own lack of experience in regards for trying to initiate any kind of romantic interaction with women my age. I have no clue how a man in his late-twenties is even remotely able to interact with a female equal.
So get off your pedestal, try helping these “Nice Guys” and figure out why they have developed into these seething balls of negativity. Usually it’s no fault of their own, and have no idea how to break the cycle of anger, hate and pain that reside inside their minds.
Part of the problem is that the “nice guys” don’t meet anyone new. The bar scene is tough for guys who are shy. As has been discussed above, the “nice guys” are likely inexperienced around women and don’t know how to act, that is why they come across as lacking in confidence. What those guys really need to do is to start approaching women. I am professionally and financially successful myself, although women don’t seem to care much about this in and of itself. I have friends who seem to have settled and married the only women they thought that they could get and I don’t want to be like them. Only one of my friends is married to a woman I would date if she were single. The other wives are either too old, physically unattractive, or seem to have spent a big portion of their youths drinking excessively, which is a turn-off for me. Within the next 10 years, the wives of all of these guys will probably look 10 years older than the guys.
My last girlfriend was very hot, although she was older and that ended up being a problem for me. She was totally into me and made her interest very obvious from the start – that probably made me more confident around her and I definitely did not act like a “nice guy” around her.
Since we broke up a few years ago, I have been on dates, although I haven’t found a suitable match. I think that my biggest problem is that I don’t have a crew of guy friends who like to go out – part of the reason for this is because my friends have moved away or entered relationships/marriage. So I have been left to try to figure things out on my own. I work out at a gym at which a lot of attractive women also work out. I have started forcing myself to talk to women whom I see down there regularly who seem like they might be receptive. This was very hard for me to do at first because I was not used to meeting people on my own like this. However, I am a lot less nervous now and have gotten to the point where I think I can playfully flirt. When I first approached women, I just tried to talk to them and told them I saw them down there a lot. I did this as practice in anticipation for talking to other women who have given me clear indications of interest.
So in summary, I think that the “nice guys” need to first get comfortable talking to strange women. In my opinion, an upscale gym can be a good place to do this if the guy and the girl are regulars because the familiarity of seeing/recognizing the person at the gym a lot makes the guy seem less threatening or reduces the chances of the woman thinking he is a weirdo. After the guy becomes more used to talking to strange women, it will be easier to flirt with those women or other women in the future because he will feel more confident that he isn’t going to say something stupid.