What if the ‘Nice Guys of OK Cupid’ is Harming Innocent People?

Joanna Schroeder has known a lot of Nice Guys™ and understands the frustration and fear women feel as a result, but believes the bullying and humiliation happening on Nice Guys of OK Cupid is out of line.

There’s a lot of talk about this Nice Guys of OK Cupid (NGOKC)* Tumblr site, where photos of non-consenting men are taken off the OK Cupid dating site and mocked for everyone to see.

First word of warning: I don’t buy the crap that all guys who call themselves “nice” are actually nice. In fact, I’ve witnessed enough self-proclaimed “nice guys” saying racist, sexist, rapey and scary things in my life that my ears automatically perk at any guy who calls himself “nice”.

That being said, I know a lot of actual, real-life nice guys. Guys that are kind, sweet, smart, genuine and giving. My husband is one of those, as is my brother. All through high school my brother was the girls’ best pal, but rarely their date. The girls he had mad crushes on would keep him on the phone for hours, then go to the dance with a different guy. Eventually he grew out of that phase, or more accurately, he went to college where the women were more interested in a highly intelligent sweetheart than they had been at our high school.

For the purpose of this article, I’m going to call guys like my brother “nice guys” and guys like the the scary ones, “Nice Guys™” and hopefully the distinction is clear, because calling assholes “nice” is confusing and I suspect the misnomer does more damage to understanding who is a threat to our safety and who is not.

♦◊♦

Hugo Schwyzer’s 2013 debut piece on Jezebel, No One is Entitled to Sex: Why We Should Mock the Nice Guys of OK Cupid, argues that the underlying issue with Nice Guys™ is that they feel like they somehow deserve sex or romance from women.

What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women’s bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy.

I think Hugo has nailed something about Nice Guys™ and their belief that they are somehow owed sex or love. That really resonates with me from a few experiences I’ve had with Nice Guys™ in my own life.

But I get a whole different sense from some of the guys on NGOKC. I get the sense that they’re like my brother was when he was young, except perhaps a bit more socially awkward. Perhaps they call themselves “nice guys” because they don’t realize that in the blogosphere, that actually means Nice Guy™ and connotes a self-righteous prick who thinks that the only reason he isn’t getting dates is because he isn’t an asshole, all the while not realizing that he actually is an asshole, most notably because he believes he is entitled to a woman’s attention and feels pretty self-righteous about being a so “nice”.

It’s all very confusing. Here’s a tl;dr—Yes, most guys are nice, but no, not all guys who call themselves “nice” are actually nice. In other words, friends, judge each person as an individual and don’t give your number to a guy who is an asshole, regardless of what he calls himself.

♦◊♦

So let’s be real, here. NGOKC is a bullying site. We all know that, right? Even those who think the bullying is justified as a protective measure against the Nice Guys ™ realize that what they’re doing is grade-school level bullying. We’re publicly mocking people by putting their faces on a site they didn’t agree to be on, and we’re sharing their faces with our friends so we can talk about how stupid and annoying and awkward they are.

And America loves bullies! As long as the person getting bullied is the “right” person, we love to set our enemies on fire (symbolically, of course). For instance, if you think that women don’t belong in gaming, you were pretty psyched that Anita Sarkeesian was bullied. If you think a reformed and repentant former addict with a sordid past shouldn’t have a voice in feminist discourse, then you’re amped that Hugo Schwyzer has been bullied for the past year.

Because Anita Sarkeesian deserves it. Because Hugo deserves it. Because the Nice Guys of OK Cupid deserve it.

Because we’re pissed off at them for how they’re potentially going to hurt us.

These are extreme examples, of course. It’s easy to say that Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t deserve it—you truly have to be an amoral and misogynist asshole to believe that the threats and harassment Ms. Sarkeesian endured last year were in any way deserved. But what about Hugo? If you are an abuse survivor, or if you grew up in a home with an addict, you may not feel comfortable with Hugo being active within feminist movement. I disagree with you, but you have every right to speak your mind about that and I will be respectful of your critique (though I may critique back). But do you have a right to threaten his safety, the safety of his family, to spread misinformation and outright lies about him in order to topple his source of income? I’d say no.

And the Nice Guys™? Do all of them deserve to be mocked, to have their faces plastered all over the place because we’ve all known one too many assholes who masquerade as “nice” only to turn out to be cruel, or even scary, self-righteous assholes?

I’d say no to that, too, particularly in the format NGOKC does it. They don’t know these guys and some of them are so seemingly innocent that it guts me to see them mocked like this. As Ally Fogg points out in his recent reaction to the Jezebel piece, The Self-Righteous Bullies of Tumblr and Their Feminist Apologists, there are more than a few guys’ photos on NGOKC that feature nothing aggressive, harassing or even politically incorrect, but are mocked nonetheless. One such profile features only the following quote from the guy, nothing else. And he is still mocked:

Remember that boy in high school who helped give relationship advice to girls he really liked that were taken? Every time he tries to solve an issue that the girl had, he succeeds, but not with the girl. That boy was me. I was always in the friend zone. The “nice guy.”

Of course that evokes my brother and my friend from high school, Matt Crowder, who writes about being called a “geek”. I would take you out hard for mocking my brother or Matt in that way. And the idea of the kid above being mocked publicly makes me rage. The guy is so young that I keep typing “kid” to describe him. He’s an adult and I want to respect that, but he’s a kid in the scheme of life, struggling to find dates, and then this happens to him? For what? To make us laugh?

It’s bullying, plain and simple.

♦◊♦

Women are angry at Nice Guys™ and that anger deserves a forum. We’re angry at the way they make us feel guilty for not wanting to have sex with them. We’re angry at the way we are often manipulated into believing we’re in a legitimate and safe friendship with them until suddenly they turn on us and call us horrible names and make us feel like shit and deeply ashamed for not desiring them. And we deserve to be angry over that.

But who are we sacrificing to that anger? The kid who is quoted above? Why is he taking the fall for the prick who says, “‘No’ is just a ‘yes’ that needs some convincing”? That Nice Guy™ needs some convincing that he is a scary potential rapist that should seek therapy, tout suite. That guy deserves our anger. But what genuinely nice guys are we going to mow down with all our rage toward him and his ilk?

And when does our rage stop being a genuine excuse for hurting others? There was a time, not that long ago, when men were allowed one emotion: anger. And women were not allowed anger. As a result, the feminist movement rightly encouraged women to raise their anger to seek justice and equality—equal access to the vote, to career and educational opportunities, to equal protection under the law, and equal rights within the family and to property inheritance (among other things). Thank God for their anger.

And their anger was used as a weapon against them, too. They were told they were crazy, out of control squelching witches. It was used as an excuse to not listen to women’s voices. Ladies, just settle down here for a moment. Everyone just calm your pretty little heads. And that patronizing bullshit only made them more angry. But their anger changed things.

But is all anger excusable, regardless of outcome?

Noah Brand recently pointed out to me the ways in which we’ve almost turned anger into a god, a thing we worship, in our society. He says that justified anger gave way to a major change in the nature of discourse. “This [anger] was a game-breaking rule change. Because suddenly there’s one thing you can’t ever argue with, reason against, anything. You just have to accept it.”

Because if you don’t, you’re silencing a woman. And that is truly a very bad thing.

“Given this,” Noah continued, “more and more discourse shifted to a place of anger. It’s like if you’re playing Battleship, but the house rule is you can’t bomb Row H, pretty soon everyone will just stack everything on H. It’s just more efficient to start every argument from a place of anger, because then you can’t ever lose or even be challenged.”

Well, I’m challenging this particular outlet for anger right now. The Nice Guys of OK Cupid goes too far.

I am angry about stuff in our society. I’m enraged about the ways in which rape is not taken seriously in our society, about the fact that less than 2% of rapists ever serve a night in jail. I’m livid about the horrific oppression many women around the world live in. I’m spitting nails over the bigoted politics that keeps same-sex couples from marrying. Man, I’m pissed about a lot.

But my rage doesn’t give me an excuse to hurt innocent people. And you, curators of Nice Guys of OK Cupid, are hurting a lot of innocent people.

In his critique of Hugo Schwyzer’s Jezebel article, Ally Fogg says this:

[B]ecause Hugo wants to have a chat about male sexual entitlement, he is quite prepared to accept this bullying as a means to an end, and write off the victims as collateral damage. I can only try to imagine how these men must feel, what the psychological consequences might be for a dejected, lonely young man with minimal self-esteem who suddenly finds himself subjected to public ridicule by millions and branded a douche, a misogynist and a creep by association.

There are civilian casualties in any war, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t exercise caution and practice empathy with each and every discussion. In this case, some of the guys profiled and mocked on NGOKC are guys who are already suffering, and as Ally Fogg explains, “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.”

♦◊♦

I must make one more point here, even though it is only tangentally related. In my Twitter stream yesterday was a plea from a reader who directed me to Hugo’s article with this, “Imagine this: picture of overweight woman who says she has a “great personality” w her misguided/uneducated profile answers. [Next tweet] below photo: ‘HAHA this ugly fat chick thinks she deserves a bf because she has a great personality’. jezebel would be outraged”

Indeed, I think Jezebel would be outraged, and so would I. (By the way, that horrible shit happens all the time. I have Googled and found sites that do exactly that. I will not link here because I don’t want to give them linkbacks.)

But it’s not a direct comparison. As wrong as I think the NGOKC Tumblr is, as far as I can see, they are not mocking the guys because of their weight or their looks. They are primarily mocking them because they said they were “nice”. And there are a significant number of guys on NGOKC who would meet any mainstream standard of being attractive.

♦◊♦

It comes down to this. Most people believe that someone deserves to be mocked publicly, harassed, or even bullied. Whether it’s a politician you disagree with, a person who wrote something you find troubling, or an asshole pretending to be a nice guy.

But in every voice you raise against the person you disagree with, ask yourself this: Am I challenging this person, or am I bullying them? Am I trying to make the world better, or am I trying to draw attention to my own “goodness”?

And ask yourself whether the innocent people you take down alongside your target are worth the war you’re waging, the way you’re waging it.

 

*Update: As of Saturday January 5, 2013 the Tumblr blog “Nice Guys of OK Cupid” has been taken down. 

 

 Photo: Flickr/Wonderlane

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Joanna Schroeder

Joanna Schroeder is the type of working mom who opens her car door and junk spills out all over the ground. She serves as Executive Editor of The Good Men Project and is a freelance writer whose work has appeared on sites like xoJane, hlntv.com, and The Huffington Post. Joanna loves playing with her sons, skateboarding with her husband, and hanging out with friends. Her dream is to someday finish her almost-done novel and get some sleep. Follow her shenanigans on Twitter.

Comments

  1. I hate to say this, but most of those guys on NGoOC tumblr are not attractive physically. They are mostly overweight, dont know how to dress, and have awful poses on those pics. They seem like guys who don’t care with their appearance at all. I’m a guy and I still amazed by how many single guys still believe that women don’t care for men appearance at all. They maybe less shallow when it comes to looks compare to men, but still have preferences and attraction for men physique and appearance. Little tweaks on diet, exercise, and nice fitted clothes are gonna make big differences.

    If a regular unattractive fat guy being nice to a girl, her reaction would be very different compare to if Mat Bomer or Channing Tatum being nice to her. Thats how human are. Thats how human sexuality are. Nice people are not the same as attractive people. When it comes to that, men and women are not really different. Yes we are different, but not THAT different.

    • Dr. Anonymous says:

      “If a regular unattractive fat guy being nice to a girl, her reaction would be very different compare to if Mat Bomer or Channing Tatum being nice to her. Thats how human are. Thats how human sexuality are. Nice people are not the same as attractive people. When it comes to that, men and women are not really different. Yes we are different, but not THAT different.”

      This is also an entirely different question. And I have lost count of how many times I have seen overweight women defend their right to lust after conventionally attractive men. The difference being that this is called right to preference.

  2. What I don’t understand about these Nice Guys is what compels them to think that the best place to air their dirty laundry is on a dating website. Like, seems to me to be pretty backward logic to complain about women on a site designed to hook you up with women. I don’t know if it’s youth or lack of self-awareness, as some of the men on Tumblr looked far too old to be still in-the-dark on how very basic dating works. Rule Number One: Don’t be bitter, resentful or angry. It’s something both sexes can agree on at least. Because I’m sure no man wants to date a woman who, on her profile, talks about how all men just love shallow bitches. She has a serious problem. And I’m sure there are women who write that, and they’re just as ignorant. Though they’re still probably more successful at getting laid if they want– at least if they’re attractive enough. Someone did a test study and created a fake profile for the most ignorant, racist, bigoted, idiotic woman she could manage, and as long as the picture she chose was attractive, the girl got messages.

    There was one scary guy on that Tumblr blog whose picture deserved to be shown, for the safety of women everywhere (he claimed that any woman who had self-esteem or any passion beyond him was a bitch, c*nt, slut, etc.) The rest of their faces should have been blurred out. I didn’t really gain anything from the pictures being there. “Nice Guys” don’t really have a universal look to them.

    • “Though they’re still probably more successful at getting laid if they want– at least if they’re attractive enough. Someone did a test study and created a fake profile for the most ignorant, racist, bigoted, idiotic woman she could manage, and as long as the picture she chose was attractive, the girl got messages.”
      Part of why the nice guys exist, girls still get SOME form of intimacy but these guys can’t get anything. I am not so sure women can truly empathize fully with the nice guys if they’ve ever had a bf/gf. I’ve seen women who write about how they’ve been hurt on their profiles n other negative stuff, always made me wonder wtf you’d say that?

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        girls still get SOME form of intimacy but these guys can’t get anything.

        Yes. I don’t think most women can truly understand the toll that involuntary celibacy takes on men, which is why they always seem inclined to write off male sexual frustration as entitled, privileged whine.

  3. I am coming in on the conversation late but I just have a couple comments on the friendzone thing. I’ve said this before but…

    I am not a big fan of PUA but one thing they teach which I think is 100% right is that if you want a romantic life you can’t waste your time on friendships with women who don’t reciprocate your feelings. You need to be clear up front that you want to date her. If she says no, move on. It sounds mean, maybe, but you only have so much time.

    The other thing I’ve noticed is that men who complain of being friendzoned iften complain of women who seem to share similar personality qualties. I’d suggest you Google “histrionic personality”. I’m not saying all or even most such women have a mental disorder, not at all! But there are certain personality traits that you may want to watch out for. So you don’t get sucked into those time wasting, one sided relationships.

    • I agree with a lot of what you say, Sarah, but I don’t understand why you stigmatize mental disease in such a way.

    • “You need to be clear up front that you want to date her. If she says no, move on. It sounds mean, maybe, but you only have so much time.”

      But then you’re a creep who clearly only wanted to get into her pants and moved on when she didn’t automatically open her legs for you and give you the sex you think you deserve. If you *really* liked her, for more than just her body, you would have stuck around instead of running off at the first hint of difficulty. And she’ll be glad she turned you down since it turns out it was just some passing fancy, not real feelings, that drew you to her.

      • Pretty much.

        If he says up front he’s interested in dating/romance/sex then he’s a creep that just wants to get in her pants.

        If develops feelings over time during friendship and then says something and decides to leave when those feelings are not reciprocated then the entire past friendship is retconned as being a front to get into her pants.

        No matter which way he goes about it if he so much as doesn’t like it if the outcomes doesn’t go the way he would like it to go it will ALWAYS be explained away as him having some nefarious plot to get into her pants.

        In short it’s always the guy’s fault.

        • Yup. Haven’t you noticed that everything is a mans fault?

          Man can’t get a date? His fault.
          Woman can’t get a date? Men are stupid/shallow/”afraid of a strong independent woman”/intimidated.

          Man misreads signals and makes a wrong move? His fault for being stupid or thinking he’s entitled to sex. Also, if she was interested she would tell him!
          Man misreads signals and doesn’t make a move when he should? His fault for not getting the OBVIOUS hint.

          Woman sees man she’s interested in and says nothing? It’s okay honey, you shouldn’t have to risk the pain and humiliation of rejection!
          Man sees woman he’s interested in and says nothing? Grow some balls and say something, no wonder she doesn’t want your cowardly ass!

          Man doesn’t communicate clearly? His fault
          Woman doesn’t communicate clearly? Mans fault for not inherently understanding

          Woman gets abused by a man? His fault.
          Man gets abused by a woman? His fault for not “manning up and taking control of the situation” or his fault for not leaving

          Woman commits sexual assault against her boss? She can mention it in a GMP article in a context that is sympathetic to her. (http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-i-dont-deserve-to-be-happy/ (from the article) ” He doesn’t seem to have any interest in me, until the day I stand in front of his desk and hook my thumbs into the string of my thong panties and wriggle them at him.” (a comment by the author) “The incident with my supervisor is used to illustrate how broken I was–a college educated woman, with a decent job, yet still the only way I knew to relate to someone I admired was sexually.”

          Man commits sexual assault against his boss? Come the hell on.

  4. Bay Area Guy says:

    Wanna know the really scary part of all this nice guy vs bad guy stuff? The men I know that are misogynist as hell, never have trouble meeting women. The shy “nice guys” I know are no where near as entitled as the bad guys, the shy guys actually feel they aren’t WORTHY of a woman (their self-esteem is shit) and I’m not so sure they feel entitled to anything. YMMV

    Yes, which only reinforces my suspicion that feminists simply enjoy taking pot shots at romantically unsuccessful shy guys.

    Maybe this whole NGOKC will have a positive side effect, in that it finally exposes a large percentage of feminists for what they really are.

    • it is also telling that these women not just reject, but actively demonise these ‘undesireable’ men. im sure there is biology driving the revulsion

    • Dr. Anonymous says:

      An enlightening start is to being by looking at Hugo himself.
      His affairs are no secret, nor is his abuse of power to get laid. Yet somehow Hugo gets to tell other men about what is moral and what is not.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Yet somehow Hugo gets to tell other men about what is moral and what is not.

        The thing is, though, that’s precisely his appeal to feminists.

        Think about it. This is a guy who slept with several younger female students and attempted a murder/suicide involving his girlfriend, among his many other transgressions.

        Let’s see. Former drug user? Check. Womanizer? Check. Dangerous? Definitely check.

        He fulfills every negative stereotype that feminists have about men. His mission seems to be letting women/feminists know that most men are just as bad as he used to be, and that only their feminism can save men.

        Obviously, many man hating feminists are going to embrace his message, despite him being excommunicated from some quarters.

        All I’ll say though is that his actions speak far louder than the so-called “entitlement” of nice guys ever will.

        • Write an article of the negativity of the opposite gender, written by someone of that gender and it’ll probably be very popular with those who think negatively of that gender.

  5. Bay Area Guy says:

    Well, since Joanna’s article featured a quote by Hugo Schwyzer, I feel that it is necessary to rebut feminists arguments about nice guys through a pro-male woman.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4

  6. Innocent Bystander says:

    if, for example, i was to say on the internet that i wouldn’t piss on hugo schwyzer even if he was on fire, would that constitute bullying ?

    or is that just sharing my opinion about someone who chooses to throw himself into the limelite with opinions i find revolting ?

  7. this was moderated into dust apparently:
    ———
    You can see just on comments on various articles on this site that women’s “instructions” on how to go about dating are all over the place.

    First we see complaints about being looked at as a sexual object so they say “I want a man to love me for me and really get to know me”. Yet when a guy actually does this he gets friendzoned (oh I forgot that “doesn’t exist” according to feminists), I mean the man tries to get to know her as a person he turns into a friend instead of a romantic interest. The guy attempted to “get to know her as a person” (as we’ve heard on various comments), but that put him in a non-romantic/sexual spot. The man tells her he was hoping to be more than friends and gets, “OMG he only wanted sex. He wasn’t really nice! He’s a horrible person! How could he think friendship was a bad result!”

    So then they say “well it’s the guy’s fault she didn’t see him romantically because he should have let her know his intentions up front”. Of course this contradicts the supposed desire for a man to “get to know her as a person”. A man who walks up to a woman and says he’s interested in her romantically is basically saying “I want to have sex with you” since up to that point he can only base his interest on physical attractiveness and maybe only knowing a minimum about the woman’s personality. That gets the reply of “He wasn’t interested in me as a person, just by body”.

    Now we have the guy who is “up front” with his intentions and we get the response from women “OMG! I can’t go anywhere without guys hitting on me”, or “I just met a guy and he asked me out why do guys think they can do this?” See: http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/men-please-weigh-in-on-this-do-guys-get-the-wrong-impression-quite-often/
    Now that the man has made his intentions known initially (like we’ve been told to do in various comments) he’s a creep, he’s entitled to bother her for dates, or he violated her space (take any of the various complaints). Now the man fails for being up front.

    We get all these “instructions” from the feminists on these sites about what we are supposed to do, but they all end up contradicting each other. and women wonder why men get so frustrated and angry with the dating scene.

    • Here what I thought as the source of problem : Many Men and Women thought that they are really different creatures when it comes to dating and sex, when the reality is we are not really different. Men and women believe that when it comes to attraction, men attracted to women on the first sights and physical only, while women attracted only when they alrady known men personaly. This believe make so many misunderstanding on dating scene.

      First, the whole being nice and get love/sex. Men believe that in order to get a woman attracted to you, you must be nice to her and make her fall to your personality, because men believe women are not shallow like men, they dont get easily attracted to men based on physical things only and they need a long time to get attracted to men. While in the reality, women do get attracted to men like men get attracted to women. For example, theres a woman seeing an attractive man and she is attracted to him, and she want to know him better. She want to have sex with him. Theres an initial attraction coming from this man. He doesnt need to be nice to her to make her attracted to him. But when she know him better, she became more attracted to him because of his charming personality. An attraction is important, and personality make it better. If there is a guy she is not attracted to being nice to her, she would not be attracted to him, no matter what the guys do the her. See, theres no difference to how us men being attracted to a woman right? If there is an unattractive women being nice to you, would you see her as a potential lover, or just a friend?

      Of course many women also believe this, because women dont want to be “shallow” like they believe men are. This believe also makes women dont want to make a move and approaching an attractive men they are attracted to, because it makes them shallow and unwomanly right? I think this believe that men are from mars and women are from venus makes an unbalanced dating and love scene and makes so many misunderstanding. The reality is we both are from earth, and we are not really different. Trust me, to treat and see an opposite sex as a not different creature make your love and sex life so much easier.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Jimbo’s comment should be comment of the day.

    • “First we see complaints about being looked at as a sexual object so they say “I want a man to love me for me and really get to know me”. Yet when a guy actually does this he gets friendzoned (oh I forgot that “doesn’t exist” according to feminists), I mean the man tries to get to know her as a person he turns into a friend instead of a romantic interest. The guy attempted to “get to know her as a person” (as we’ve heard on various comments), but that put him in a non-romantic/sexual spot. The man tells her he was hoping to be more than friends and gets, “OMG he only wanted sex. He wasn’t really nice! He’s a horrible person! How could he think friendship was a bad result!””

      Not sure if you realize but when women say they don’t want to be seen as a sexual object, they aren’t saying they don’t want to be seen as a sexual BEING. Pretty much it means see me for who I am, what I do, like me for my brain AND also like me for my sexuality. They aren’t saying treat them as asexual, but just don’t treat them like sex is all they are worth. I think the problem is many guys probably heard the sexual object part and thought thinking sexually of women was off-limits completely. If you treat them asexually then they won’t know you’re interested, you can treat them as sexually attractive women as long as you also treat them as people who are worth more than just the sex.

      In society women get a lot of messages saying they’re worth is just their sex (men tend to be told their status/success/wealth/job/etc are their only worth), and some guys do just want sex from them which makes those women feel like sexual objects vs sexual humans that are desired for more than just sex.

      • Archy, I understand what they are saying and I get it, but I don’t buy into it being a legitimate complaint. Any attraction that is sexual in nature has an element of objectification to it. When I _look_ at a woman the first thing I notice (after her face) is her legs, another guy might notice breasts first. What I hear from feminists is this is “objectification”. The truth is it’s just personal preference I find for attraction. Even if it is “objectification” it’s not a bad thing because thats concerning my own sexuality and women aren’t going to tell me what I can and cannot find attractive about them. A woman who says she wants to be liked for her “sexuality” is saying men should respect what she is attracted to. So basically they want us to respect their objectification while complaining about ours.

        It’s all just attraction. Attractions is sexual in nature, there’s nothing we can do about it.

        • That’s not objectification. Objectification would require you to only see them as body parts, not noticing a human with great legs, breasts, etc. Basic attraction does not objectify and I wish people would quit spouting such a myth. If you see a woman and think she has nice legs, but still realize she is a woman and you go on to wonder about her for more than her body than she is not an object. If you think of her as just someone to have sex with but see her as a tool for your pleasure, and not a human to share sex with THEN that is objectifying.

          • If that’s your idea of objectification than I have never known _any man_ to objectify a woman he’s interested in. Please give me a real world example of a man who objectifies a women he dates or wants to date.

            Your idea also doesn’t line up with what I read on the feminist websites that pretty much equate men complimenting any part of a woman’s look as objectification.

            • Jimbo & Archy – I think you’re agreeing with each other, both saying that what feminist Web sites define as “objectification” doesn’t happen all that often, because men are capable of noticing, being attracted to, and complimenting some physical trait without that meaning it’s the only or most important characteristic of the person they’re attracted to. You know…kind of like women say they do.

            • That’s the thing, those feminists are dead wrong about objectification and quite frankly don’t seem to have any idea of what men as a group are like. I’ve rarely seen a man or woman objectify someone, hell the most romantic stuff I’ve heard of has come from MEN. It’s sad how out of touch some people are. I’m sure there are men in their lives who do obectify them but I highly doubt they are the majority.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        So let’s see…

        A guy has to get to know a woman as a person and connect with her emotionally, all while conveying that he is sexually interested in her, without her perceiving that as him thinking she’s a sex object. And he has to do all of that in a short period of time, lest he be friendzoned.

        Seems easy enough.

  8. Question: If NGoOKC had used any measure whatsoever to protect users anonymity, (how) would this conversation be different?

    • I think if the user’s anonymity had been maintained that would successfully pull the project out of bullying territory and into the land of “bad taste.”

      I don’t think that it would have avoided the nice guys vs Nice Guys, women are also part of the problem, I don’t think you know what the friendzone means, friendzone is bullshit, it’s not sexual entitlement, bullshit on sexual entitlement, etc etc back and forth; that part of the conversation would have come up regardless.

    • Doing a point by point takedown on why something is bad I don’t think would be bullying, especially if it’s anon like in your question. Being snarky and lumping everyone together though would be.

      “Profile 1 says X, X is misogynistic because it treats women like yadda yadda” No need for photos or usernames, might need to change wording a bit so they can’t be googled.

  9. Meh. Nice guys. I just grew the f*ck up and realized that “women” (in general) weren’t worth being treated any nicer than the next person. Worked wonders with my relationships. Why? I just flat out quit caring. Suddenly 4 women that I had been listening to, while they cried their little hearts out, were wondering where I went.

    I stop back, talk a little, but I’m busy so it can’t be long. Then they got mad, then they started chasing, then they got naked. I basically said that I “just want to be friends” and am just that: a friend.

    Of course, I’m not available all the time, so it frustrates them.

    • My wife and I had a discussion about if we have a boy what will we teach him about talking to girls when he gets to his teenage years. That was really the most gentle thing we could come up with without being prejudicial.

      “Just treat them like anyone else”. Treat them exactly like you do any other friend. Don’t treat them nicer, don’t treat them better, don’t go out of your way to do something for them, and don’t get them gifts for no reason”.

      We both know from our own experiences (me from having terrible dating problems my whole life, her from knowing how she related to men when she was younger and now seeing how women treat her own younger brothers).

      • Dr. Anonymous says:

        If I told women half of the jokes my male friends and I tell each other, I would be labeled a pervert. One such example is us saying that we would rather have a large pineapple violently inserted into our urethra than develop in C#.

  10. Cyberbulling is still such a new phenomenon…but, in human history, so is dating.

    Being hurt can make you mean, and being mean can make you meaner.

  11. PEOPLE – PLEASE READ THE SOURCES YOU CRITICIZE BEFORE YOU WRITE MISLEADING ARTICLES AND COMMENTS. Maybe you haven’t actually seen the website NGOKC? The “Nice Guys” are on there not because they have poor social skills or aren’t conventionally attractive enough to get dates — if that were the case, it would be bullying. But no, they are on there because they say the most sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic opinions on their profiles WHILE also claiming to be “nice”. When people say hurtful things to oppress others, we have every right to call them out.

    • 1. No need for the all caps at the beginning.

      2. Yes most of us here actually did read the site.

      3. The “Nice Guys” are on there not because they have poor social skills or aren’t conventionally attractive enough to get dates….
      Actually yes some of them are. I’m wondering if you actually looked at the site.

      4. they are on there because they say the most sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic opinions on their profiles WHILE also claiming to be “nice”.
      And if that was the case then you would have a point. But since that is not all that was up there you actually don’t have point.

      5. When people say hurtful things to oppress others, we have every right to call them out.
      Yes when they say such things. But the problem is there are men that got put on that site for saying things that were not oppressive or anything like that. No they got put on that site because someone didn’t like what they were saying. Two different things.

      Engaging in -isms is a bad thing that needs to be called out. However -isms are not justification for bullying, which IS what was going on on that site.

      • I didn’t actually get to see the site. Did anyone get screenshots?

        @Elizabeth, people are saying that some of them did not trigger any of the racist or homophobic slurs, but were actually these socially awkward guys/whatever. I doubt people would care if it was only the assholes being called out.

        • Unfortunately no I did not keep any screens but I can say that from what I saw there was a mix of assholes being called out and innocently awkward guys being bullied.

        • Mr Supertypo says:

          no screens here, but I only saw claims from the bloggist, no real evidence. He could actually have fabricated everything just for notoriety. And what metrics are being used to judge a asshole? how does one get selected to be a butthole? I dont know….more I think about it more unethical it seems to me. And more difficoult it gets to justify everything.

        • Elizabeth says:

          Archy, please see my reply to Danny (it is currently awaiting moderation)

      • Elizabeth says:

        @ Danny

        1. Caps help attract attention, especially in a sea of people rushing to defend men who say sexist things

        2. Maybe you didn’t read it carefully enough? All of the men featured said misogynistic things:

        — blatant misogyny, such as expecting sex as an obligation. If this belief of entitlement to sex is followed through regardless of lack of consent, it is also known as rape.

        — casual misogyny, such as requiring all women to shave their legs. Also known as a double standard. Wanting your partner to shave her legs is a preference, not an entitlement. You can’t demand that all women shave their legs any more than a woman can require all men to shave their legs / chest / facial hair / pubic hair / whatever.

        — delusional misogyny, such as PUA (pick-up artistry), where men obsessively learn and practice techniques like “negging” — attacking a woman’s self-esteem and manipulating her emotions until she seeks his approval and will do whatever he wants, including give sex. Based on the delusion that all women can get sex if they want but only give it to the assholes and not to the Nice Guys (TM). Also that they are stupid and easily manipulated by cheap tricks like negging. Also that they are bitches when they withhold sex and skanks once they give it up. PUAs like to wear fedoras, if you were wondering why the site kept showing men in fedoras. It is the ultimate giveaway that a man has (delusionally) sexist opinions

        — so subtle maybe you didn’t even notice. From the author’s example of a “nice guy” who was bullied by NGOKC, even though he was actually definitely a Nice Guy (TM), even if he didn’t realize it. ***** Remember that boy in high school who helped give relationship advice to girls he really liked that were taken? Every time he tries to solve an issue that the girl had, he succeeds, but not with the girl. That boy was me. I was always in the friend zone. The “nice guy.” *****

        Did you see that? Maybe you missed it. He was nice to girls but they put him in the “friend zone”. NO. The friend zone is a fallacy. Women are not machines that you put kindness into until sex falls out. This guy might have been sad he didn’t get any sex or romance, but he was still being a Nice Guy (TM) for believing that he was entitled to it, just because he was exhibiting friend-behaviors.

        Moreover, these girls were TAKEN. He said so, did you see that? He was a guy who thought that girls were objects to be won, rather than subjects with real feelings and choices. And he clearly didn’t respect their choice to, I don’t know, reciprocate his friendship by extending their friendship. Because they were, I don’t know, already in a relationship WITH SOMEONE ELSE.

        Finally, what he is saying is that if he had known that they would have chosen to be his friend and remain with their partners, he wouldn’t have bothered to help them at all. What a Nice Guy (TM).

        3. Yes, I did read the site. See above.

        4. I have a point. See above.

        5. They deserved to be called out. See above.

        6. It’s not bullying if you post verbatim exactly what people FREELY write about themselves. That’s called TRUTH.

        • @ Danny
          1. Caps help attract attention, especially in a sea of people rushing to defend men who say sexist things.
          Not defending men who say sexist things. More of defending men whose words are being called sexist when it doesn’t fit the bill.

          2. Maybe you didn’t read it carefully enough? All of the men featured said misogynistic things:
          Unless you are ready to defend that assertion about every single entry on that site I dare say that you are wrong about that. The problem problem is there are entries on that page that were none of what you are describing here. Yes what you describe was happening in some of those entries which is why I wasn’t saying that the site should not exist at all.

          I agree that such thing should be called out. On the other hand when you start sneaking in things that don’t fall under that umbrella (probably in hopes that no one would notice) then you have a problem.

          Did you see that? Maybe you missed it. He was nice to girls but they put him in the “friend zone”. NO. The friend zone is a fallacy. Women are not machines that you put kindness into until sex falls out. This guy might have been sad he didn’t get any sex or romance, but he was still being a Nice Guy (TM) for believing that he was entitled to it, just because he was exhibiting friend-behaviors.

          Actually it does exist. It exists in that place where women want to keep a guy around that is nice and useful but wants to keep the relationship on her terms and her terms only. Back in the day we called that guy a sucker for letting himself get strung along like that and no one seemed to have a problem with the women that treated guys like that.
          Oh but now that women are getting called on that behavior all of a sudden it’s unfair to women? No dice.

          6. It’s not bullying if you post verbatim exactly what people FREELY write about themselves. That’s called TRUTH.
          Cool then I think I’ll do some truth here then.

          Joanna and AllyF both fully acknowledged that the NGOKC were not 100% wrong in their material. There are certainly guys out there that treat women in the ways described and yes the Nice Guy does exist. The problem is now it’s at the point where nice guys are getting lumped in with the Nice Guys.

          In your posts here you are trying to say that NGOKC were 100% correct in their material. Well that’s already been shown to be wrong.

          I read through the site and saw some things that needed to be called out and some things that were nowhere near the misogyny you list out. It’s not that I didn’t notice, its that in some of those cases, it was truly not there.

          • Elizabeth says:

            The friend zone is misogyny. It is what we use to shame women who exercise their right to say no. (And slut is what we use to shame women who exercise their right to say yes.) Have you ever heard of a woman complaining that a man friend zoned her? No, she is told that He’s Just Not That Into You, so stop obsessing over him ok?

            To your assertion that women like to string men along — A man giving a female friend relationship advice doesn’t automatically mean that she is leading him on. It means that they are friends and he is being a friend to her by give her friendly friendship. We as readers don’t know anything about their friendship, only that he gave her advice AS A FRIEND ABOUT HER BOYFRIEND and that she didn’t choose to leave her boyfriend for him, according to the Nice Guy.

            You assume automatically that she must have been stringing him along. As in, she was friends with him without giving him sex while giving someone else (uhh her boyfriend) sex. Therefore, she wasn’t really his friend, she was just using him…for friendship? And what is so wrong with being JUST friends with a guy, who is also (pretending to be) a friend to you? Nothing. Unless you think that women owe you sex for being nice to them and are mean bitches if they don’t.

            You can say that NGOKC had other posts that were wrong and bullied innocent guys. I find that hard to buy when the ONLY example of nice guy that Joanna chooses to give in her article (so we as readers can assume it is one of the best examples she found) is actually a Nice Guy.

            • The friend zone is misogyny. It is what we use to shame women who exercise their right to say no.
              No. It’s what was originally used to call out women that led guys along in a relationship where she was getting what she wanted but he was not getting what he wanted. It has come to encompass what you mention here but that was not the original use.

              Have you ever heard of a woman complaining that a man friend zoned her? No, she is told that He’s Just Not That Into You, so stop obsessing over him ok?
              Yes I have heard such complaints from women. It comes from women that talk about guys using them for sex (or whatever reason the guy strung the woman along to get what he wanted with no care for what she wanted). Yes there are women that get the “He’s just not that into you” bit but it’s far from universal. Okay?

              You can say that NGOKC had other posts that were wrong and bullied innocent guys. I find that hard to buy when the ONLY example of nice guy that Joanna chooses to give in her article (so we as readers can assume it is one of the best examples she found) is actually a Nice Guy.
              There have a few other examples where the guy in question wasn’t a Nice Guy. You are just assuming that the entries on the site are all Nice Guys.

              Look they exist. I’ve said as much. Joanna said as much. AllyF said as much.

              When it happens it needs to be called out. But the need for it to be called out is not a blank check to broaden the definition of Nice Guy to the point where everything falls into it.

            • Mr Supertypo says:

              Either case Elizabeth, the bad behaviour of someone doesn’t justify the bad behavior of others. Exposing pics of people without their consent,I dont know how it is where you live, but in my country is considered a crime. And im sorry, good people, bad people, or just “funny” people whatever reason there may be doesn’t condone their exposure without their consent. To me there is no way around and NGOKC engaged in unethical and perhaps illegal behavior. Do you condone breaking the law just for the sake of fun? Its ok to expose people you dont like online? do you mind f some people do the same with you? and why not exposing the “idiocy” of both genders? But beside that I still cant get past the: what evidence do we have that NGOKC were exposing jerks? the word of the bloggist? who define who is a “bad guy”? again the bloggist?
              To me everything seems kinda questionable, and again unethical and again, perhaps (surely) illegal.

              There are far to many ‘maybe’s’ and ‘hearsay’ to take that blog seriously. Not to mention the exposure of people in a public place against their will.

            • “Have you ever heard of a woman complaining that a man friend zoned her? No, she is told that He’s Just Not That Into You, so stop obsessing over him ok?”
              Yes, and I’ve heard women say they friendzone people. Methinks you may not fully realize what friendzone is, at least for the versions I used when i use to harp on about it it wasn’t about women that I did nice things for that didn’t like me, which is normal and ok, it was specifically for women that would lead someone on and USE THEM for their “nice” behaviour. They’d be ambiguous, very touchy, use them for attention n comfort, know the guy liked them and were happy to use him for all the favours. I agree that those who use it in the expectation sense are bad, but there are plenty who are just sick of being fucked around by the other gender.

              It can also just refer to the annoyance of being seen as a brother when you like someone sexually/wanna date them. You’ve been friendzoned, seen as non-sexual to them, or not attractive, it’s normal. It’s a frustrating place if you’ve been friendzoned a lot in respect to not seen as attractive, some guys n girls do have entitlement but others just feel no entitlement but were lonely n sad about their luck (as I was). There are multiple uses of the word and not all of them rooted in misogyny.

              I didn’t see what bullying the “high school fixer” got, I would hope that it wasn’t bullying but simply pointing out to him POLITELY that it’s stupid to go after people in relationships and that simply being nice doesn’t mean women will fall at your feet. Guys are often told that being nice will win a woman’s heart, they aren’t told that it won’t win EVERY woman’s heart so they can often keep doing nice things in the hope it woo’s the woman like birds dancing in front of prospective mates. If there was bullying to these hopeless romantics then that is wrong n unhelpful, it’ll call resentment n bitterness. I was lucky that I woke up to it after realizing you can’t win em all and that love is a game of luck mostly, that if someone hasn’t got feelings for you that it’s ok and doing extra shit probably won’t change that. I was lucky to see n talk to people that said this stuff politely without bullying or making fun of “nice guys”.

              I doubt half these guys, even the misogynist ones actually realize it’s misogyny, I have a feeling many are actually romantics at heart doing it the wrong way and are frustrated about it. Society, and especially romantic movies give fucked up messages towards dating n romance. I haven’t seen this site so the type of nice guys I am talking about may not be on there, I hope they aren’t because it doesn’t help to shame the shit out of them, they’re the ones who will listen to women if they be honest n upfront instead of giving cryptic advice like “women like nice guys”. I hope those nice guys read some of what I’ve said about the topic on other articles on the GMP because I’ve been there, had that frustration, sat there wondering why people would basically make it sound like being nice to a woman is like being a supermodel to a man, that it’s very attractive and then when you realize very few if any women are attracted to you it starts to hurt because you feel something is wrong.

              How many “nice guys” don’t feel entitled to sex, but actually just want a chance at romance? If people wanna deconstruct how bad some nice guys are, so be it, I suggest doing it in a decent manner and not just a snarky manner which causes resentment, but ensure you don’t get the “innocents” lumped in, make damn sure you’re being accurate about them and not just talking about someone who is clueless but can be taught a better way to find love, sex, whatever. I would have LOVED to have heard this shit in grade 9, would have saved a lot of time n pain.

        • Holy cow, so a guy who might be hopeful in the friend zone deserves to have his picture and profile posted for the world to see and ridiculed? You are very cruel. I hope you recover from whatever trauma you endured and I’m sorry about all the pain you must be going through to defend/promote this behavior.

    • Mr Supertypo says:

      “PEOPLE – PLEASE READ THE SOURCES YOU CRITICIZE BEFORE YOU WRITE MISLEADING ARTICLES AND COMMENTS. Maybe you haven’t actually seen the website NGOKC”

      Thats your words…how do I know its true? where are the evidence about that? I did only see few pics and some comments. How do I know the person who held the NGOKC is not just another troll? and even if it was true, that doesent justify bulliysm. You dont change people opinions through bullysm. You educate them and challenge them through open debate. So NO. That blog was borderline criminal and there is little to no excuse for it.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      First, if you read my article you will find details of at least one where the person was obviously not a jerk. I made it very clear. I read 10 pages of the NGOKC Tumblr, very carefully, before writing this article. Please go back and reread my article if you missed those details. Also, see Ally Fogg’s article, linked here, for more details.

      I do have screenshots but they’ve made their way to my trashcan along with like 300 other things that aren’t named. Enough people have recognized that not all of the guys on NGOKC were saying anything all that bad that it’s not like I’m saying anything revolutionary.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Remember that boy in high school who helped give relationship advice to girls he really liked that were taken? Every time he tries to solve an issue that the girl had, he succeeds, but not with the girl. That boy was me. I was always in the friend zone. The “nice guy.”

        ***

        Joanna — you gave the above example. He was nice to girls but they put him in the “friend zone”. NO. The friend zone is a fallacy. Women are not machines that you put kindness into until sex falls out. This guy might have been sad he didn’t get any sex or romance, but he was still being a Nice Guy (TM) for believing that he was entitled to it, just because he was exhibiting friend-behaviors.

        Moreover, these girls were TAKEN. He was a guy who thought that girls were objects to be won, rather than subjects with real feelings and choices. And he clearly didn’t respect their choice to reciprocate his friendship by extending their friendship. Because they were already in a relationship WITH SOMEONE ELSE.

        Finally, what he is saying is that if he had known that they would have chosen to be his friend and remain with their partners, he wouldn’t have bothered to help them at all. That is what makes him a Nice Guy (TM).

        I don’t remember what else I saw on the site that could have been misconstrued as harmless, but I am rather certain the rest of the “nice guys” being ‘bullied” were also Nice Guys (TM) whose subtle sexism wasn’t readily discernible by everyone. Sexism is tricky, and it catches all of us. We all engage in it without realizing. But just because many people didn’t find the screenshots offensive doesn’t mean that they weren’t.

        • Tim Margheim says:

          Elizabeth,

          This guy might have been sad he didn’t get any sex or romance, but he was still being a Nice Guy (TM) for believing that he was entitled to it, just because he was exhibiting friend-behaviors.

          I can’t figure out where you’re getting the impression that he believed he was entitled to more than friendship. He certainly is at least sad that he never got to more than friendship with those girls, but where do you get “entitled”?

          Are you perhaps assuming that’s what he means by “friend zone”, because you’ve seen other guys who definitely did feel entitlement use “friend zone” as a shorthand for that sense of entitlement?

          For myself, the first time I remember hearing the term “friend zone”, it did not have any connotation other than “She has decided it would be better to remain friends than to try romance”. It didn’t even imply a “best guy friend that she leans on emotionally but doesn’t date”. It just meant “You’re basically stuck, man. She sees you as a friend, so she won’t see you as romantic potential.”

          I agree that the idea of an inescapable friend zone is silly–my first and third relationships both developed out of friendship. But that doesn’t mean that someone who thinks “You’re stuck, man” is feeling entitled. You can’t assume that someone is feeling entitled simply because they complain about “the friend zone”.

          Moreover, these girls were TAKEN. He was a guy who thought that girls were objects to be won, rather than subjects with real feelings and choices.

          You’re reading a lot into the word “taken”. Both men and women use it to mean “already in a relationship” without intending to imply any lack of agency & personhood. It’s a common word that exists in American English.

          Yes, its etymology has objectifying implications, and yes, I think it’s generally better to prefer language that has positive implications–but that hardly means that the many men & women who pick it up from common usage are thinking of the “taken” person as “objects to be won, rather than subjects with real feelings and choices”.

          And he clearly didn’t respect their choice to reciprocate his friendship by extending their friendship. Because they were already in a relationship WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
          Finally, what he is saying is that if he had known that they would have chosen to be his friend and remain with their partners, he wouldn’t have bothered to help them at all. That is what makes him a Nice Guy (TM).

          Again, how do you know that he was anything more than sad that his affection was unrequited? Where do you get the impression he wouldn’t have bothered to help them at all?

          The kind of entitlement & objectification you’re talking about is indeed horrible, and it’s not uncommon. And maybe you can explain to me how you’re seeing it in this guy’s comment. But at the moment, I honestly cannot imagine where you’re getting it. It seems to me that you’re assuming it’s there because of two phrases that are much more ambiguous than they seem to you.

          I respect you enough to carefully consider what say in reply (if you reply). I hope you’ll extend me the same courtesy, and genuinely consider the possibility that in this case, you might have read this guy’s comments through the lens of your (very real) past experience with other guys, and mistakenly read things into it.

  12. courage the cowardly dog says:

    This is all very confusing. I think the core belief of “real” Nice Guys is that they are being eschewed for assholes. If so, those women who have rejected them will get what they deserve. Case in point, my ex wife, who I sacrificed my own career for so she could pursue a unique career opportunity for herself that required us (her, I and our 3 children) to move from a place where my career was blossoming to a place where it died on the vine so she could pursue a high level position at a sky rocketing dot com only to discover that like fireworks those pretty lights ultimately fall to the ground as useless ash. When the dot com crashed she turned to me and saw that because of the sacrifices I made for her benefit I could not support her in the lifestyle she felt entitled to, so she went out and found a paramour with whom cheated on me with. Now this asshole, and he is an asshole, also happened to be married and a wealthy doctor who never let his wife’s aspirations get in the way of his as I so foolishly did. Well, long story short, he is now divorced, paying a boat load of child support, alimony and a substantial portion of the marital assets to his stay at home ex wife of 25 years and he is living with my ex wife who pays me child support, alimony and 60% of the marital assets (including retirement, thank you very much). They are not married, he beats her from time to time (I never so much as raised a hand to her) and on occaison I get a call at 3 am from the hospital asking me to come down because she is in “crisis” (ie she is having suicidal ideation) and being the nice guy that I am I go.

    The unfortunate thing is the demise of my 16 year marriage has left me cynical and unable to initiate much less sustain meaningful relationships with women. So in lieu of that $150.00 (about what it would cost for dinner and a play for two) I can get laid without all the heartache. So fear not nice guys those who reject us, get what they deserve. What goes around, comes around.

  13. The funny thing is how many women who escape from abusive relationships start their statement to the police or testimony in court with, “He seemed so nice when we first met!”

    Or how often do their family tell the police the same thing or say the same thing when their partner is on trial for murdering them?

    If nothing else, NGOKC is a great resource for women to spot these losers and give them a way to avoid them.

  14. Due respect but the guy you say doesn’t deserve to be mocked, deserves to be mocked.

    He has the exact same sense of entitlement that all “Nice Guys”TM have; “I was ‘nice’ to you therefore you’re supposed to go out/sleep with me.”

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This was a comment by CyberQuaker, on the post What if the ‘Nice Guys of OK Cupid is Harming Innocent People?’ [...]

  2. [...] to avoid being a creep. Hat tip to Emily! Is the Nice GuysTM of OK Cupid harming [...]

  3. [...] what remained of his good name lay in tatters, torn limb from limb by the Mindless Digital Mob – the same mob that has demolished innocent Men before – and by those who side themselves with the very same mainstream media outlets who led the charge [...]

  4. [...] at a code monkey conference. Another example of socio-pathological behavior, explained right here. I am not alone.   Footnotes: [1] “slutwalker”: a woman who attends or supports a [...]

  5. […] what remained of his good name lay in tatters, torn limb from limb by the Mindless Digital Mob – the same mob that has demolished innocent Men before – and by those who side themselves with the very same mainstream media outlets who led the charge […]

Speak Your Mind

*