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
About Joanna Schroeder
Here’s a question, while we’re on entitlement: Is there a term for women who think they automatically deserve love and sexual attention simply because they exist?
or:
Why do women feel that they can pull the evolution card for not approaching but not in anything else in society?
Or what about women who have extensive checklists of what they require for a man, but then cry “sexism” and “unfair beauty standards” when men simply want a woman to be physically attractive?
Let’s talk about that “entitlement.”
A little insight, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this applies to men too:
Most women’s “lists” are not checklists of requirements, but wishlists. A few of the items on there might be dealbreakers – I want a nonsmoker, I want someone who wants to be a dad, I want someone of my same race – but other items are more flexible. I hate to compare it to househunting but it’s sort of similar, there may be certain features you can’t live without, like a garage, and others that are perks that you’d certainly like but don’t require, like a Jacuzzi tub in the master bathroom.
I think some women misinterpret the Physically Attractive ‘requirement’ or overreact to it. Of course, everyone, man and woman, wants a partner they’re physically attracted to (except maybe asexuals?), but when a man says he wants a woman who’s physically attractive, it’s very tough for women to compartmentalize that as just this one guy’s preference and divorce it from the cultural forces at play with beauty and attractiveness.
Anyway, back to entitlement – if there’s anything men AND women are entitled to, it’s having standards. One of my other favorite sites is an advice column with a primary female following, and it saddens me to see the low, low, low expectations some women have of their men, and the shady behavior they tolerate just for the sake of staying in a relationship. The phrase we use on the advice site is “Aim Higher” – encouraging them to actually have standards other than “being in a relationship with him means I’m not single and that’s good enough for me.”
Also, it’s rare to see entitled behavior excused/justified/encouraged in that site’s community – in fact, we’re downright eager to tear those letter-writers or commenters a new one and call them out. I can’t guarantee that’s representative of all women. The site skews towards 18-35-year-olds from mostly-white North American and European countries, and the audience tends to be more progressive than conservative. But, just in case anyone thinks that we women like and condone entitled, bratty, snotty attitudes among our peers, that there’s some conspiracy at work here, well, that’s just not been my experience.
I think I obscured my point somewhere there in the last paragraph. Got distracted. Point was, everyone is entitled to standards. My personal opinion, though, is that it’s best to keep these standards to yourself and not publicize them, discuss with friends (which becomes gossip), and definitely not go around telling the people you want to date. It’s a good idea to include the dealbreakers in your online dating profile, for instance, but incredibly tacky (in my opinion) to post a long list of “requirements” that are really “wishes and perks.”
Must point out that saying you’ll only date someone of your own race* would be enough to get you listed on the rogues gallery of NGOKC if you were male.
*not a position I share or respect, btw, but a point worth considering.
Some of the things that get you put on that site are even more innocuous like saying you believe that a person can have too many sexual partners.
What if the is answering just for his own standards? Like maybe he believes you should only have sex with marriage? Then anything more than “1″ (in the case of a life-long marriage) would be immoral to him. But that doesn’t automatically mean he thinks that should be universal.
Am I going to judge him for that? You know what? I’m not. Because your sexual preferences don’t have to be mine. That question isn’t, “Do you think that all people should adhere to the same guidelines as far as number of sexual partners goes?” As it’s framed, it’s simply a personal preference. And while some of those guys ARE saying that they judge women who’ve had “too many” sex partners as sluts, that’s the vast minority of guys compare to how many have simply made that statement in general.
I can’t think of a noun for it along the lines of NiceGuys(TM) but “shallow” comes to mind – even that is not quite accurate though. I’d probably be inclined to call such a woman a b__ch but that’s also really non-specific and can refer to a range of behaviors.
Maybe we can call them Ugly Stepsisters, after the Cinderella myth – the ones who think they deserve the prince when they have nothing going for them.
Ugly Stepsisters…
I like it!
I like it too, but would go Evil Stepsisters because “ugly” is looksism.
Come to think of it, I think Evil Stepsisters would also more accurately convey the point of using such a term.
The problem with those women isn’t their looks, but rather their attitudes.
Exactly!
“Ugly” does capture the fact that they expect to score out of their league though. And there are more ways to be ugly than just looks.
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?
The people that engage in this bullying and mocking are doing the exact same thing that the those that bullied/mocked Schwyzer and Sarkeesian did when they engaged in their bullying. They try to make them out to be as bad as possible in hopes that people would ignore little things like fair consideration and good faith.
But who are we sacrificing to that anger?
Actual nice guys.
Because if you don’t, you’re silencing a woman. And that is truly a very bad thing.
And that’s a train they have been riding for ages. You can’t talk about male rape/abuse victims because that silences female victims. You can’t talk about sexism against men because that erases sexism against women. Misadry is nothing but an attempt at erasing misogyny (although anyone that actually knows the term and how it is used would immediately recognize that misandry and misogyny aren’t competing for existense but actually work hand in hand). Saying that things that happens so men are on an instituational level is an attempt at denying what happens to women happens at an institutional level.
The “Don’t piss off women” card has been used for a long time (ironically using the card to keep things in place that oddly enough, pissed off women) to keep men quiet. I’m ready to tear that damn thing up.
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.
Which is why I’m happy to see that people are challenging women and feminists that think they should get a free pass on doing the exact same things that were done to them. Hopefully the days of, “It’s okay, we’re women/feminist.” being passed as justification for what amounts to hypocrisy are dying out and will die altogether one day.
In short our anger is starting to change things as well.
Noah Brand recently pointed out to me the ways in which we’ve almost turned anger into a god…
I’ve been working on a post off and on over the last few months with this exact point in mind. It’s a god that requires tithing in order to sustain itself.
The most disturbing thing is that the article isn’t just about the site, but actually in defense. It’s titled “Why we _should_ mock…(underline mine).
This is where modern feminism has totally lost me. Danny’s right too often the “it’s okay, we’re women/feminist” is used to excuse bad behavior (just look at the article about psycho bitches which calls for us to understand “psycho bitches” instead of calling them what they are, abusers and manipulators”.
I would think you could be a feminist and also be able to say 1. yes some of those guys are assholes and 2. the site is wrong, and in poor taste. Apparently Hugo nor the people at Jezebel can see that yes you can still think the “Nice Guys” are wrong, but so is the site. Who cares who gets hurt? It’s all in the name of feminism.
Just for clarity – at most sites, including Jezebel, authors do NOT title their own articles. 90% of the titles even here are given by editors, not authors. So while I disagree with some of Hugo’s points, I’d hold Jez more accountable for the title than Hugo.
The problem is though even if Hugo didn’t pick that title, that title is not really out of line with something he would actually use.
This is where modern feminism has totally lost me. Danny’s right too often the “it’s okay, we’re women/feminist” is used to excuse bad behavior (just look at the article about psycho bitches which calls for us to understand “psycho bitches” instead of calling them what they are, abusers and manipulators”.
And it doesn’t help that that thread seemed to turn into arguing over the correctness/incorrectness of calling someone a bitch. Let’s see if some of that same concern carries over to situations where guys are called dicks and dickheads.
As I alluded to in the disposability thread, there is a type of nice guy who gets crap and isn’t considered.
He’s the guy who is naturally pleasant, listens to society and women when they say they want a considerate, thoughtful, pleasant, not-pushy guy. And then, starting maybe in junior high, sees the hottest girls going out with guys who are not that. Whether the guys qualify as jerks is another question, but they’re certainly not what he’s heard women say they like or that society has told him endlessly is the Right Thing To Do.
And his resentment at having been misled is most certainly not “entitlement”. Not in a million years.
I’ve been following niceguysofokc, and I’ve felt that most of it is justified. I was just like your brother in high school, but I learned not to use the term “friendzone,” as it stems from male sexual privilege. Guys who complain about being friendzoned only see women as sexual objects, and they are not interested in actual friendship. I recently saw someone brilliantly turn this around, as women being put into the “fuckzone,” and I feel if your guys saw that, they would understand what they were doing. Also, it might be beneficial for men to realize that complaining about women on a dating profile is not going to help them at all.
However, I also came across “fedorasofokc,” and much of that is just making fun of guys for wearing fedoras. Then there is “okcgoldmine,” which has some “Nice Guys,” but also makes fun of some people for just being geeky. Notably, that one is run by a man and occasionally makes fun of women’s profiles. Those kind of sites obviously cross over into bullying.
I recently saw someone brilliantly turn this around, as women being put into the “fuckzone,”….
I’d say both the friendzone and fuckzone exist.
However I think that the problem with the friendzone is not that it doesn’t exist but that it’s been overblown by having it’s definition broaded to apply to things where it doesn’t apply (kind of like using YOLO as an excuse to engage in stupidity).
Hmm, the friendzone as the place where men land who try to get a women’s love by being her friend, and the fuckzone where women are who try to get a man’s love by having sex with him? I think both concepts (if defined in the way above) make sense in a way.
It’s also obvious that neither behaviour is quite healthy, and that the person engaging in these behaviours can easily be taken advantage of (especially if the other person knows about the feelings the person has for them).
What, what, oh what, please, is this “male sexual privilege” you speak of? I’d rather say that thinking in concepts like “friendzone” stems from male sexual frustration instead of privilege, but then again, that might sound just too sympathetic to some ears.
But honestly, what constitutes this “male sexual privilege”? Especially when it comes to men who haven’t even had a regular *date* with a woman in ages, let alone had sex.
I can’t even get into the difference between your INDIVIDUAL experience and how that is separate from “privilege” right now, but my message to you is this:
You’re not having a date in ages has NOTHING to do with me or any other women in your life. I bear NO responsibility to you and your sexual/romantic fulfillment. None of the women in your life or in the world do.
And you bear no responsibility for my sexual/romantic fulfillment. None!
Let’s just all be clear about that. You aren’t owed sex—not from any particular woman, nor from the universe.
I think that difference between his individual experience and privilege is precisely what EW is asking about.
It’s not that he thinks that women owe him sex. It’s that despite not haveing any luck (or very little) he is still told that as a man he is benefitting from some sort of privilege in the realm of dating/relationships/sex that is afforded to him due being male.
Not withstanding my lack of lack of sexual success (see below), I’m wondering a) what sexual privilege even a “normally” sexually successful man has compared to women, and b) how this affects sexually unsuccessful men intoo adopting concepts like the friend zone.
Sorry if my above post was a bit too ranty, but huh?
I’m not saying that I don’t have a fulfilling sex life. Even if I hadn’t, that wouldn’t mean that I expected women as a whole or an individual women to be responsible for changing that.
The reason I mentioned sexually, or even dating-ually unsuccessful men, is that the assertion that men have special benefits in the sexual/dating area just for being men, while tenuous at best, becomes downright insulting when thrown at men who aren’t even let into this area.
It’s like bringing up the male privilege of getting paid a dollar for every 77 cent a woman earns when talking about homeless men, except that I cannot possibly see what the analoguous privilege for men could be when it comes to sex.
Anyhow, thanks for the advice, I certainly appreciate those Caps Locks …
Sorry for the capslock, it’s just that it triggered a very intense anger within me for those guys who act like women are bitches because they don’t give the guy the time of day. It’s like, “Maybe she doesn’t give you the time of day because you give off the vibe that you think women are bitches?”
Ugh, I know women can be horrifically shallow and that shy guys have a really hard time. I personally do NOT think guys have dating privilege, though I”m sure someone will tell me why I’m wrong, but men have sexual privilege because of the fact that you guys generally don’t walk down the street, or get on a subway train or go on a date with the ever-looming fear that you could be raped at any moment.
We do.
I know you guys have other things you’re afraid of when walking down the street, etc, and I’m not going to say that those things aren’t real.
But being held down and raped in public until your colon and intestines are pulverized and you almost bleed to death probably isn’t one of them.
And no, I’m not talking about the girl in India, specifically. Amazingly, I know TWO other women personally who have had that happen to them. The almost bleeding to death because of rape. And then there’s the girl in India.
Hmm, my first reaction would be to see sexual privilege as part of dating privilege and separate sexual privilege from “privilege with regard to exposure to sexual violence”.
Then again, that would be willfully ignoring the effect that sexual violence has on the victim’s sexuality, so I see your point.
(FTR, I’d still guess that CyberQuaker’s point would make more sense if he was talking about male dating privilege, because I see hardly any link between women’s fear of getting raped and the friendzone concept.)
…but men have sexual privilege because of the fact that you guys generally don’t walk down the street, or get on a subway train or go on a date with the ever-looming fear that you could be raped at any moment.
That is very true. I think the problem is that this gets passed off as dating privilege.
Totally rhetorical to you Joanna (but if someone else reads this feel free to answer). How exactly does not having the fear described above wash away the misfortunes that guys have in the realms of dating/relationships/sex?
It’s like, “Maybe she doesn’t give you the time of day because you give off the vibe that you think women are bitches?”
I think there is a bit of a problem where what you say here gets passed off as the ONLY reason a woman would rudely brush a guy off. It’s not because she’s a jerk. She picked up on his jerk vibes and acted accordingly. While that certainly can and does happen it’s at the point now that it’s being used as a screen for women that really are jerks themselves. Thus protecting them from having to recognize that maybe, just maybe, its not always the guy that is the one with the jerk vibe.
I think there is a bit of a problem where what you say here gets passed off as the ONLY reason a woman would rudely brush a guy off. It’s not because she’s a jerk. She picked up on his jerk vibes and acted accordingly. While that certainly can and does happen it’s at the point now that it’s being used as a screen for women that really are jerks themselves. Thus protecting them from having to recognize that maybe, just maybe, its not always the guy that is the one with the jerk vibe.
As usual, Danny nails it. The same thing with “creep.” If a woman feels creeped out by a guy, then he must have done something creepy, end of story. Couldn’t possibly be the fact that she herself is wrong in the head.
It doesn’t wash anything away. Recognizing that it’s a reality of our lives doesn’t do a thing to diminish anything in your dating life.
That’s why I separated out “dating” and “sexual”.
I appreciate your answering but your answer shows why I didn’t need you to.
You recognize they are separate.
However that’s not the what I was talking about. The implication isn’t that your fears as a woman somehow diminishes my dating life as a man. The implication is that your fears as a woman somehow enhances my dating life as a man. As in I benefit from your fear.
Personally I think its just an attempt at trying to make out everything under the sun that’s bad for women into something that benefits men. Again you don’t have to address because I know you don’t do this.
Danny, WHAT are you talking about?
Tell me, seriously, quote me, where I said that my fear of rape has in any way benefitted men’s dating lives?
It makes NO sense. I separated dating privilege from sexual privilege and you’re still linking them!
I never once, NOT ONCE linked the two and it is disingenuous and dishonest of you to say I did.
There is an implication that as a man I benefit from your fears as a woman.
But please hear me out Joanna. I’ve now said not once but thrice (and now four times) that you DO NOT DO THIS.
From what I’ve said above:
1. Totally rhetorical to you Joanna (but if someone else reads this feel free to answer)….
2. I appreciate your answering but your answer shows why I didn’t need you to.
3. You recognize they are separate.
4. Again you don’t have to address because I know you don’t do this.
This is not an accusation that you try to link these together. This is me wondering why they get linked together by other people.
Okay so you’re saying that I don’t do it specifically but that others do.
But I don’t even think others do. I think your’e thinking they do.
I don’t think there is any power in you not having to fear being raped. But I think you have more inherent rights and safety than I do from rape. And that needs to be recognized. You don’t “gain anything” because I don’t have it, but you do HAVE something that I don’t have.
It’s not cause and effect, but it is the truth.
But I don’t even think others do. I think your’e thinking they do.
Of course you do that’s nothing new….
I don’t think there is any power in you not having to fear being raped. But I think you have more inherent rights and safety than I do from rape. And that needs to be recognized. You don’t “gain anything” because I don’t have it, but you do HAVE something that I don’t have.
True. I fully recognize that as a woman you are much more likely to be the victim of s sex crime than I am. And I also recognize that something must be done about it.
“I know you guys have other things you’re afraid of when walking down the street, etc, and I’m not going to say that those things aren’t real.
But being held down and raped in public until your colon and intestines are pulverized and you almost bleed to death probably isn’t one of them.”
Having those organs kicked or blown out of you, a fate FAR more often endured by boys and men, somehow just doesn’t register.
Greg, I recognized men have their own things they have to fear.
You’re just being combative. The original topic in the thread was about SEXUAL privilege. That’s all. I recognized that men have different legitimate fears.
There is no need for you to pretend like I didn’t recognize that.
The bad things that happen to women IN NO WAY diminish the bad things that happen to men.
Joanna, serious question: Could you please define “sexual privilege” and “dating privilege”
These days I feel like I see ” privilege” so often it’s making my head spin to understand what anyone is talking about.
Yes, let them eat cake.
“Let’s just all be clear about that. You aren’t owed sex—not from any particular woman, nor from the universe.”
So why is it that every time I’ve said “no” I was put down or ridiculed?
Most likely because you were either disrespectful when you proposed sex, or you were not asking a person whom it was appropriate to ask.
And you being put down has NOTHING to do with whether you’re owed sex. Nothing. And you thinking it does may be why you’re being rejected.
Wait.
Greg asked why he was put down/ridiculed when he said no (presumably no to sex with someone that was proposing) and you say that it was mostly likely because he was disrespectful when he proposed it?
Im confused….
@Danny…
Regrettable misinterpretation, but telling.
I’m not confused. There are domestic violence advocates who demand that the exercise of male consent be seen as a denial of affection and, thus, abusive. Some jurisdictions have rendered this into law and others will follow. Depending on the outcome of the next Australian federal election it could be coming to my country.
The comments segueway nicely.
Greg Allan said on January 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm…
Joanna Schroeder said on January 4, 2013 at 6:44 pm…
Under Rape Culture: What It Is and How It Works I included the following…
…how my male privilege prevented my aunt from NOT doing what she did.
The drumbeat goes on.
I’m not an initiator of sexual activity to begin with. I might be unusual but I’ve been in the habit of saying “no” more often than not. It has caused some problems to say the least.
Did you see the bit where I put the word “no” in quotes? That was because it was ME who said “no”. My words. Not somebody else’s. Am I allowed to do that? Because the women concerned didn’t think I should be. Nor does a culture that WILL tell me I’m sick or gay or hate women if I do say “no” AND that I have sexual privilege to boot. My so-called “privilege” is a right to consent and to bodily integrity that is dubious at best.
It was in that recent “rape culture” thread that I mentioned that GMP is not really a safe place for male survivors. My thinking at the time was that even after telling their stories they still needed to re-invent and prove themselves time after time after time. It took quite a bit of courage for some of them to open up in the first place. The return of the same drum beat that forever marginalises them is their disprivilege.
You wonder why I get narky(“combative”?), Ms Schroeder?. It was a simple, single sentence. You were and are aware of my status as a survivor. Read your own words again.
Not a safe place!
Meanwhile, on the home front, the local rape crisis service is removing references to “male privilege” because it has come to understand how demeaning it is to so many of their clients.
maybe she misread your comment? It happens sometime.
Yeah, I just misread your comment. Thanks to Mr Supertypo for going into the conversation with good faith.
If girls are ridiculing you for saying “no” then they’re doing something horrible, and acting like entitled assholes.
As far as the why of it, my feeling is that in our society we’re taught that guys ALWAYS want sex, and it doesn’t matter who the girl is, guys just want a wet warm hole.
So, not to diminish the responsibility on the girl to NOT be an asshole, for her the rejection is like double… I mean, we’ve been told you guys would never say no, and then you do? We must be like, beyond horrible. We must be ogres.
I tell a similar story of how so many female on male rapes I believe happen because of this same messed-up societal message of guys never say “no” here:
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-its-dangerous-to-say-only-bad-guys-commit-rape/
Instead of the snarky zinger, the three words you should have written were “I’m sorry, Greg.”
I don’t think I made a snarky zinger, actually Jacob. I genuinely was thinking Mr. Supertypo for the good faith. Jesus fucking Christ.
Greg, sorry for the misread.
Jacob, thanks for parenting a 35 year-old woman. That was so nice of you to tell the dumb little girl what to say! I sure do owe you for teaching me my manners.
Gosh, it’s amazing I get through the day without Jacob around to help me.
(Now that’s snark, just for clarity).
Johanna, you are welcome
To me was obvious that Johanna misreaded, it can happen to me, it can happen to you and to everybody else. Mistakes happens and nobody is perfect (not even me
). And beside that its not even Johannas style to just lash out against other users for no reasons.
Anyway what is obvious to me doesent mean that is obvious to everybody, we are not clones (fortunately).
Thanks to Mr Supertypo for going into the conversation with good faith.
Oh you mean like that good faith you showed Greg?
Hey Danny, it was pretty obvious I misread the question, being as I answered the opposite of what he actually asked. It had nothing to do with faith in any way, it was a misread.
Oh, and NEWSFLASH you guys, I’m on your side here. You’re so used to fighting that you don’t know how to not stab your allies when they’re walking by your side. So I may not agree with every tiny aspect of what you’re saying, but you guys make it awful hard to speak up on your behalf to my own community, against their message.
Oh, and NEWSFLASH you guys, I’m on your side here. You’re so used to fighting that you don’t know how to not stab your allies when they’re walking by your side. So I may not agree with every tiny aspect of what you’re saying, but you guys make it awful hard to speak up on your behalf to my own community, against their message.
As much as my inner grudge would love to answer this I’m going to answer this instead.
The reason it’s so hard to tell friend from foe is because is because we are being expected to extend consideration and faith when we are not being shown any in return.
You don’t have to agree with every little thing but in times that we disagree and we told things ranging from its in our head to being we support terrible behavior so yes, it can be a little hard to tell the difference.
I’m not? In what way, Danny? Because you disagree with me about what a woman experiences when she is rejected by a man? I think that this cultural expectation is so prevalent that it is one major reason why men are raped by women, as I wrote in the piece linked above.
If you want to ignore that insight from a living, breathing woman with some experience, go for it. If you want to say, “No, that’s not real. She can’t be right.” then fine. But don’t say that I’m NEGATING anyone’s experience. I was simply answering the wrong question because I misread it. That’s all. I completely honor his experience TO THE DEGREE that I said it’s a major reason why I believe men get raped by women.
I have no doubt in my mind that Greg experiences this, not an ounce of doubt. That’s why I wrote what I wrote.
I’m not? In what way, Danny? Because you disagree with me about what a woman experiences when she is rejected by a man? I think that this cultural expectation is so prevalent that it is one major reason why men are raped by women, as I wrote in the piece linked above.
I’m not trying to say that you are doing anything in regards to that comment I just made.
You told us that we stabbing allies and I just expanded on why we sometimes do that.
Not justify it. Not say it’s okay. Not say that you deserved to be stabbed.
Just explain why the holy hell it happens.
Joanna, please read that question again from Greg, hes the one that said no and being put down. Hes not proposed sex. Please answer that question from Greg again, unless you really believe its just men who think they are entitled to sex or love, and no women would do it.
Noah and I talked about Fedoras of OKCupid too.
I feel two ways about that. First, yes, you’re getting made fun of FOR YOUR HAT! It’s SO juvenile and obnoxious and basically I could never be friends with someone who thinks that publicly mocking someone for his hat is okay. It’s just gross.
On the other hand, as the dude in the photo in the fedora, it’s just a hat, dude.
In “nice guys” they’re mostly making fun of guys for having been rejected by women and carrying forth the trope of being “too nice”. They’re also mocking people for some profound political incorrectness in ways that in real life they might challenge but not necessarily mock.
So in some ways the Fedoras meme is just as bad as Nice Guys, in other ways it’s not as bad. I haven’t quite sussed out my feelings there. Regardless, it is clearly bullying.
For instance, I have 3 brothers. Of them, I would say at least 2 of them would have answered “yes” to the leg shaving question. However, if I sat down with them and talked about the leg-shaving, they would probably amend their answers to say “no” because they don’t believe ALL women have an obligation to it, they might not even believe their own wives have an obligation to it, they just are mainstream American dudes who grew up with Playboy and SI Swimsuit Editions and think that smooth legs are sexy, and until I respectfully posed a thoughtful challenge to them about it, they may have never questioned that social norm.
So here we have guys like my brothers, who probably just haven’t thought much about the issue or engaged in thoughtful discourse about it, being mocked because they answered “yes” about a question they probably interpreted as being about personal choice instead of a broader sexual-political issue.
Again, that doesn’t mean their “yes” isn’t problematic, but I’m asking us as human beings to realize how complicated individuals are and to keep our challenges respectful so as to not humiliate someone without really understanding them.
See, I’ve read profiles of women who say yes on a lot of these questions. That part really does bother me. – the whole idea that clicking the “wrong” answer on a question makes you subject to ridicule.
CyberQuaker, it seems like you really don’t understand the people you are talking about at all.
Their anger has nothing to do with “seeing women as sexual objects” and everything to do with being lied to and manipulated by another human being with whom they were completely honest.
The trope that you, Hugo Schwyzer, and others reach for is based on a fundamentally false assumption that says “The man was dishonest about his intentions while the woman was honest with hers.” when I look at friends of mine that felt they were “friend zoned,” this is almost universally false.
Two very common patterns looked like this:
Guy asks girl out on a date, unambiguously.
Girl says that she would like to date guy, but cannot do so “officially” because she (1) wants to “get to know the guy first” or (2) has some kind of ex boyfriend drama and doesn’t want others to know she is dating again.
The guy begins a relationship with the understanding that the girl knows his romantic interests and will inform him when (1) she “knows him well enough” to make a decision about dating or (2) the ex boyfriend drama is resolved.
At some point the girl decides she is not going to date the guy, but does not tell him, and instead merely begins dating someone else, or gets back together with the exboyfriend.
In these scenarios, both of which I saw play out multiple times among my friends, the guy was ALWAYS clear about his intentions, saying so upfront, while the girl later lacked the common courtesy to make her intentions clear.
But in the modern feminist movement, this reality is being denied. That these girls did not treat the men involved as fully human is ignored. If the guys complain that they were mistreated, they are accused of “gas lighting” or just being misogynists. Their anger at the duplicity they were dealt is then dismissed as “thinking they are entitled to sex.”
Only they do not think they “are entitled” sex. They think they are entitled to honesty from someone they became emotionally intimate with. And yes, honesty, is something we all deserve from those we are emotionally intimate with, even if the relationship never evolves beyond “friends.”
But in the modern feminist movement, this reality is being denied. That these girls did not treat the men involved as fully human is ignored. If the guys complain that they were mistreated, they are accused of “gas lighting” or just being misogynists. Their anger at the duplicity they were dealt is then dismissed as “thinking they are entitled to sex.”
Only they do not think they “are entitled” sex. They think they are entitled to honesty from someone they became emotionally intimate with. And yes, honesty, is something we all deserve from those we are emotionally intimate with, even if the relationship never evolves beyond “friends.”
Yes, exactly.
Everyone deserves honesty from the people they’re intimate with. Men and women.
Men are dishonest with women all the damn time, and women are dishonest too. This isn’t a gendered thing. The way they may do it may be different, but people’s individual behaviors shouldn’t be extrapolated to the entire group.
The feminist movement may not acknowledge these women exist because there are all sorts of problems with things individuals do and if some women aren’t honest about what they want to get out of dating a person, that doesn’t have to do with feminism. That has to do with individual people acting like jerks sometimes.
Should the MRM be responsible for the guys who don’t call girls back when they say they will? The guys who say they’re crazy about a girl when they just want to bang her? To me, no, they shouldn’t.
Of course there are asshole women, but there are also asshole guys. In my mind, this isn’t feminism’s problem, this is society’s problem. Anita Sarkeesian is one example. I gave others. Stop bullying. It’s never justified. It’s bullshit.
If your case is strong, you can level well-founded critiques without insults or bullying. If you MUST make a site like this one then put a picture of a bag over the guy’s face that says “DOUCHE” and get rid of identifying information.
Hey could you all do me a favor and stay on the topic of bullying and STOP making this about “women are bad too!’
Mike, the women who did that to your friends are assholes who should have been honest. There are asshole men who should have been honest with their partners.
This isn’t a game of “who’s worse” and it’s ridiculous to try and make it into that.
I apologize if my comments read as though I was arguing “women are bad too.” That is a terrible argument to make, and not of the form I would ever make myself.
The salient points I was trying to get across are those quoted by Bay Area Guy: it seems unlikely that any “nice guy” anger comes from a feeling of being “entitled,” but rather from a feeling of being lied to.
Both Hugo Schwyzer’s piece, and the one here, state that women are “right to be angry” when men have been manipulative, suggesting that the anger of “nice guys” is based in the failure of their manipulations to get them sex. This supports a narrative that “nice guys” are the liars rather than the lied to.
This is not saying “women do it too!” or “men have it worse!” It is saying that the narrative of “Why is a ‘nice guy’ angry?” is beginning with the wrong assumptions and thus leading to the wrong conclusions. Don men lie to women? Sure, all the time, just as women lie to men all the time. But to go a step further and say that ” nice guys” fundamentally view women as sex objects seems like a step too far, and yet one that is stated both here and on Schwyzer’s piece at Jezebel.
Mike, read about the people I say are making women scared and angry. They aren’t nice guys, they are Nice Guys™. That’s why I made the distinction.
If nice guys are being treated like shit, they have a right to be angry, but they don’t have a right to be angry at me and for their own benefit, they most certainly shouldn’t be putting it on a dating profile!
That’s the only thing this site gets right, I think we can all see from this site that guys put on their dating profiles that women treat them badly or that they don’t get dates. It’s just not a good idea. This is a voluntary site, you do have to sell yourself a bit.
As always, state what’s best about yourself when first meeting someone. And don’t call your ex-girlfriend a slut. Good God.
And Mike, this is what you do that drives me fucking nuts: You say things in a way that makes them sound true, but they’re NOT TRUE. “But to go a step further and say that ” nice guys” fundamentally view women as sex objects seems like a step too far, and yet one that is stated both here and on Schwyzer’s piece at Jezebel.”
I didn’t say a thing about sex objects. Not once. But I did say that there are Nice Guys™ who believe they have a right to sex and women and that entitlement they think they have leads them to be angry and obnoxious.
Not the same thing. Stop twisting my words.
And, by the way, I know from past comments here that you hear “stop twisting my words” more than anyone I’ve ever seen in a comments section. The reason you hear it so much is because you do it so much. And when you do it, I completely lose my ability to trust that you have any objective besides slamming people down.
At what point do we draw the distinction between a nice guy and a Nice Guy™? What makes someone who is a nice guy become Nice Guy™?
In my case, and I can’t speak for everyone, it was frustration. I was frustrated that everyone, my female friends, my mom, movies, tv, etc kept telling me to be nice and respectful, listen to her, give her gifts, take her out on dates, pay for her meals; this is the sort of thing that girls like and will “win the girl’s heart.” I never felt entitled, I was frustrated that I was being told to keep trying the same thing over and over and I was not getting any results.
It’s was like reading an instruction manual that tells you to press Button 1 to change the channel, but when you press Button 1 it changes the volume instead. You go back to re-read the instructions, and sure enough it says “Press Button 1,” so you press Button 1 again and again it changes the volume. Now you log onto the website and the website says “Press Button 1 to change the channel.” You press Button 1 and again it changes the volume. Now you call Tech Support and tech support says “Press Button 1 to change the channel.” You Press Button 1 and it changes the volume.
If you’re lucky you finally realize that the instructions have a typo in them and all of the places you’re going to for that advice are reading from the same misprinted instructions and what you really need to do is press Button X.
Joanna,
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. You say guys don’t have a right to be angry at you. I never said otherwise. More importantly, from what I have seen, neither do the angry guys. Making a statement like “Nice guys finish last,” is hardly the same as saying “I am angry at Joanna Schroeder.” yet you seem to be drawing a line between the two. This doesn’t make sense to me in the slightest.
Second, I never said that what these guys did on OKCupid was the right thing to do, or even a good idea. I responded to very sweeping generalizations made by CyberQuaker where CyberQuaker defended a site that seems to promote cyber bullying. There is a huge difference between “I think CyberQuaker’s sweeping generalizations are wrong,” and “I think these guys have great dating profiles!”
Which brings me to my third point. I have been nothing but courteous here, going so far as to apologize and assume that I failed to communicate properly when you misunderstood me. You responded with a personal attack. You seem to have purposefully misstated my positions multiple times now (I never said “women do it too,’ I never said that individuals had a right to be angry at you, and I never said these guys had great dating profiles). You then ended with a narrative about how I apparently “slam” people which is either a personal attack, derailing, or both.
I really do not understand what is going on here.
I’m talking about the sex objects conversation, Mike, and it’s very obvious if you read my comment that I’m talking about that particular statement.
I know you, I know what you do. I’m done engaging with you, there is no point. You don’t want to have a conversation in good faith, you want to manipulate. You can cruise through all the comments on this entire site and you will see that I have said this to nobody — well maybe ONE person — else here. It’s not about silencing you, it’s about knowing your particular style of manipulation and choosing not to buy into it anymore.
The salient points I was trying to get across are those quoted by Bay Area Guy: it seems unlikely that any “nice guy” anger comes from a feeling of being “entitled,” but rather from a feeling of being lied to.
I’m surprised you were able to read that earlier comment, since it has been sabotaged by moderation.
Just so you know, moderation doesn’t sabotage, it has automatic filter keywords and holds.
@CyberQuaker
I’m surprised you were able to fit so much wrongness into such a short post. Impressive, really…
First off, on the whole sexual privilege/entitlement thing: Having a sense of entitlement implies that you think you deserve something just because of who you are. If all of these guys just woke up one day and said, “Hey ladies… I’m a ‘nice guy,’ how about some sex?” then that would imply male sexual entitlement, and I’d buy off on your argument. But that’s not at all what’s happening. If you read these guys profiles and comments on the blog, you can see that they are seeking out them women they desire and asking, “Hey, so what’s a guy like me gotta do to get a girl like you?” And the girls respond by saying, “Well, you just gotta be a nice guy. If I could just find a guy that did a, b, and c things then I’d love to go out with that guy.” So the guy goes out and does a, b, and c things, goes back to the girl and says, “Hey, I’m a nice guy now… how about that date?” And the girl responds, “Fuck off, loser!” and the guy is rightfully pissed. NGOKC is basically just one giant middle finger to every nice guy (genuine or not) who’s ever tried to meet a cool girl online or in real life.
On the “friendzone” thing: Guess what, guys objectify women. Big deal. However, your implication that these guys ONLY see these women as sexual objects is demonstrably false. Many of these guys are spending weeks, months, and years in the company of women they’re attracted to with no sex in site. If it was only about sexual objection, they’d rightfully be spending all their free time and money on strippers, hookers, and porn. What they want is an emotional AND physical connection with these women; but the women are saying these guys aren’t good enough for both, despite having all of the traits that women SAY they want. It’s a total mindfuck for these guys… they literally have no concept of what women want, because there’s such a huge disconnect between what women SAY they want and what they ACTUALLY want. These guys are bitter and angry because women are lying to them point-blank about what actually turns them on.
The “friendzone” isn’t and never was about having to settle with being a woman’s friend when you’d want more and the friendship being inauthentic. It critiques a very specific pattern of women putting their male friends into an asexualized category of “just friends,” with any possibility of anything more being written off. Why it chafes the guys who can’t deal with it or who let it chafe is for exactly that reason: being treated as asexual.
“Fuckzone” is a great term for what I can see as the closest gender-flipped equivalent: men having sexual relationships with women with no intention or possibility of anything more serious, basically categorizing them as “friends with benefits” or “no-strings attached” or similar.
I would say that the efficacy of mockery as a social tool in general is pretty weak.
Two other things:
1. I have encountered the female equivalent of a Nice Guy TM on an advice site on which a self described large woman bemoaned the fact that she wasn’t dating attractive guys. When someone suggested she lower her standards, many posters argued that it was unfair to ask her tht.
2. The fact is that Nice Guyism started as a coping mechanism. It plays into cultural stereotypes that women like “bad boys.” I woud argue that the equivalent is not Nice Girlism but “men just can’t handle a strong successful woman.”
Good comparison in point 2. I find that any sort of gender-swapping example is problematic simply because men and women simply aren’t equal in every single way, so they don’t start from equal footing.
But that’s the best analogy I’ve heard so far. Or, I should say, the least problematic.
And I think both stem from a misconception about both genders. I don’t think all women want “bad boys” or even an overly assertive man (although I have encountered women who reject any kind of submissiveness with “if I wanted a woman I’d date a real one.”) Many do, however, so that becomes the cultural norm.
Similarly, many men are intimidated by Strong Successful Women, but not all are. The problem in both cases is that personal preferences (“I like bad boys/submissive women” or “I like big dicks/tits”) become imperatives (“all women prefer bad boys/all men prefer submissive women”)
And the word “intimidated” is overused. It’s used to cover a multitude of reactions, some of which are not “intimidated” at all. I happen to get easily overwhelmed by loud, obnoxious people with aggressive personal boundaries (obnoxious and aggressive from my point of view anyway), whether the person is a man or a woman. I could never be in a relationship with a woman who was totally loud and obnoxious. Perhaps for many people that means I’m “intimidated by strong women.” I tend to think of it as “annoyed by loud people.” I’m not scared of her, and I’m not intimidated by her strength or independence, I just can’t stand the volume. Call me a wuss, but I just don’t like icepicks in my skull.
I dislike being with loud, obnoxious people in general. I’ve heard about the double standard of “men are assertive, women are bitches” and always felt that it doesn’t tell the whole story. “Assertive” men are often just plain assholes (Trump, anyone?)
Yes, righteous fury. That is the default for all movements today. Everyone shouts and screams so loud and everyone has started to just, unless it’s something they care about in the first place, tune it all out.
I agree there was a time for anger. That time was when there were only a few major movements issues people were focusing on at any given time. That time was when movements had a clear purpose and one or two single, consolidated efforts that were focused on. Now there are so many organizations, so many things to be passionate and loud about: Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gay, anti-animal cruelty, pro-education, it is deafening, so solution: Tune it out.
The strategy needs to change. Righteous fury doesn’t gain supporters. Denouncing your opponents doesn’t gain your supporters. Well it does, but only those who believed what you believed in the first place.
When I first was interested in gender issues I approached my friends who were members of my campus’s feminist organization. Rather than sit down and hear where I was coming from and then ask me questions or politely say, well have you considered this I was met with “That’s such hetero-normative garbage. You clearly don’t know anything about gender politics, here you should read these articles.” To which I said “I have read those articles. I’m ending this conversation now before I get more angry.” I was immediately turned off by their organization. They had a chance at gaining an ally and instead I became a vehement opponent of their organization’s approach. It’s taken me a year to shift my attitude from “Feminists are all nutty psychos” to “Some people are so blinded by what’s been regurgitated to them over and over they aren’t willing to ask critical questions.”
What really needs to be the focus of getting the word out is a combination of patience, consistent and thorough facts, and a good branding and marketing campaign. That will always be better than anger and name calling, get you more allies, and have a greater impact when done correctly.
Then let them scream and let them yell. Let them keep spouting their lies and then reply with very patient, consistent information. Be even and unmoving, look astonished when they get angry, ask questions and make them stumble and fume. Let them gather venom and then send people to your website, but make sure that you message is clean, clear, and welcoming.
If you do something wrong and the other person starts screaming at you, who looks like the psycho asshole? The screamer may get more attention in the moment. They may get what the want right then and there, but the screamers you already can’t change, it is the people in-between, who are watching you handle things with grace, shrug your shoulders and say, “This is what happened” who will join your side. Let the zealots scream because their screaming will scare away the middle ground.
Also, always, always give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to save face. It’s better to say “I used to think the same thing until I spoke to someone who showed me this other set of statistics or read xyz article.”
I think the “feminism is bad, rawr” approach is detrimental. I believe that most feminists really believe that the best way to achieve gender equality is through focusing on women’s issues. I don’t think that, for most feminists, there is some sort of female conspiracy for female supremacy; yes there are some that are spreading misinformation and lies. I believe most feminists really do want equality, they believe in a different way to get there than I do and it’s not that they are badly intentioned, rather that there is new information they have not yet learned that means it is an issue of simply not having had enough of a conversation yet.
Also, always, always give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to save face.
First let me say that this is a good advice. Now let me say that I have broken this piece of advice countless times. Let me tell you why.
When being denied the benefit of the doubt it takes oh so good to turn around and deny it to them when the opportunity arises.
That’s why people are getting so riled up over this post. After having to put up with unfair (and in many cases stragith up wrong) treatment at the hands of their opponents they see this post as an opportunity to strike back. Now let me take this up a notch.
Another reason the striking back feels so good is because they have seen this prediction, ”
If you do something wrong and the other person starts screaming at you, who looks like the psycho asshole? The screamer may get more attention in the moment. They may get what the want right then and there, but the screamers you already can’t change, it is the people in-between, who are watching you handle things with grace, shrug your shoulders and say, “This is what happened” who will join your side. Let the zealots scream because their screaming will scare away the middle ground.” go unfulfilled many, many times.
It’s a bit hard to keep this in mind when in fact in many cases the screamers actually do win. Let me give you an example. Unless you have seen her work at GMP, on her own blog, or have crossed paths with her whereever she lives most people that know about feminism wouldn’t know Julie Gillis from Eve. Comparitively Jill Filipovic is almost a celebrity in the world of feminism.
During the last major dustup over the rape posts at GMP two things happens. Filipovic screamed up and down the internet about how GMP welcomed MRAs, wouldn’t be a useful site until we got rid of them, and that the GMP community supported rape apologia. Gillis basically said, “I see and respect the kind of conversation you’re trying to have, and it’s one that needs to be had. But I don’t think you picked the best way to kick things off.” It’s going to be a while before that moment dies down where the screamer is on top.
Also I think another reason this post (like many of the ones at GMP) is going to be hard is because this is a long over due example of women/feminists getting called on the mistreatment they have been getting a free pass on inflicting for a long time. They have kept the mistreatment alive by convincing people that genunine nice guys that have even the slightest complaint in these areas are jerks that, “probably weren’t that nice in the first place”. And it also doesn’t help that the ones that are engaging in this behavior will probably never actually cop to their actions.
I’m not saying all this in response to your comment because I think you need to hear it KC Krupp. I’m saying it because I think there are a lot of others out there that do need to hear it and your comment was a good place for it.
I believe that most feminists really believe that the best way to achieve gender equality is through focusing on women’s issues.
Maybe but for me that belief stops when they begin to actively deny men’s issues (or issues from a male perspective) and selectively redefining issues that affect men until they are made out to be women’s issues.
I don’t think that, for most feminists, there is some sort of female conspiracy for female supremacy; yes there are some that are spreading misinformation and lies.
The question though is how far does the misinformation and lies go. Sure you might not be able to call it a conspiracy but when sexism is selectively defined as only being possible of happening as male against female, it gets weird. And that’s a belief that is not just limited to random radfem nutters.
I believe most feminists really do want equality, they believe in a different way to get there than I do and it’s not that they are badly intentioned, rather that there is new information they have not yet learned that means it is an issue of simply not having had enough of a conversation yet.
I’ll agree there are some that just believe in a different way, and there are some that are acutally open to new information. However there just too many whose different way is badly intentioned and those that actively deny new information.
I don’t get the NiceGuys of Ok Cupid. How are they expecting sex for being nice? Are people mocking them because they are self-deprecating and nice? It seems like a gigantic assumption that these guys are expecting sex for being nice. Are they demonizing men who publicly share vulnerabilities? This seems to me like a bunch of people on the internet being assholes and picking on men who fit their category of being too “nice” or sounding vulnerable. This is internet shittiness.
With internet dating, people are vulnerable and they share their prejudices and personal issues. We could make all sorts of tumblr sites that make fun of different types of people. We shouldn’t though because everyone deserves our compassion, even those who we don’t like.
Excellent point with this Joanna:
—–
Perhaps they call themselves “nice guys” because they don’t realize that in the blogosphere, that actually means Nice Guy™
————-
I think people who are interested in the issues we discuss here as well as “cyber feminists” can easily forgot that not everyone is speaking the same language. The guys probably have no idea that “nice guys” means something horrible and bad to feminists. I would say the same goes for Friendzone. I would guess these guys have probably been told over and over again, by women, that they are really “nice”. Why would they not call themselves that? We might all be speaking English but we aren’t all speaking the same language.
Excellent point. IMO, the only mistake I see in your reasoning is that you see this obfuscation of terms as accidental. I personally believe it to be a deliberate attempt to misdirect the argument and reframe it in terms more favorable to the “cyber feminists.” Joanna makes it a point to strictly define what she means by “nice guy”; however, most women do not. Eventually all nice guy behaviors get lumped in together, creating another large block of men that be written off for being weird, creepy, losers.
I think you are actually missing part of the point of NGOKC (though I am not necissarily condoning the bahviour). I think the site is often just calling out people who are putting up sob stories on datings sites. Is that nice? No. Is it something to be terrible offended by? Not really. Sure its bitchy (I don’t think the author ever pretends it isn’t), but it might also be doing you a favor if you are a genuine “nice guy”. It is telling you that you shouldn’t be telling your sob story on a dating sight. You should be talking about all of the reasons you are great, not how many women have overlooked you or why you think that is. You come off as bitter and sad…not “nice.” And for anyone who says that they are just trying to express themselves…How can you NOT know that you sound bitter and or mopey when you write out all the reasons women haven’t liked you? So…to all you genuine nice guys out there. Pluck up. Change your profile to something that tells us girls how wonderful you are. Instead of saying “I’m a nice guy” or “I get friend zoned all the time”, tell us what kind of awesome date you’d like to take us on and why you’re genuine friends (not the girls you were dying to date, but never did) think you are awesome.
So the good way to do that is to show their faces and make fun of them publicly, so that their friends can see it, copy it and distribute it in social media and around campus?
Is it also doing a guy a favor when he’s walking through the hallways at school to point to him and go, “Nice hat, dumbass, you’re such a fucking loser!”
I mean, maybe the hat makes him look like a loser, and you want to help him realize he’s making himself look like a loser, but are you TRULY helping him by saying it in public?
Here’s a thought – how different would the site be if they covered the faces of the guys? Wouldn’t the point come across just as well, without all the public humiliation?
So just to be clear. Does that mean it’s open season on women who are similar positions? Because nothing would get women to pluck up like public humiliation.
In all seriousness I think you are missing the difference between constructive criticism (or at least an attempt at it) and having a good time on someone else’s expense and then when/if called on it trying to retroactively claim that they were only trying to help.
If the brains behind this site are so into helping people then why don’t they start an advice column or make a profile and send private messages with their constructive criticism? You know actually interact with people with something other than a tumblr whose sole purpose is to make fun of guys.
I don’t dig a lot of what Dr. Nerdlove says but I’ll give him this. He’s not flying around the net making fun of people while trying to call it “advice” (well IMO he’s not). In his own way (even if I don’t always agree with it) he saw an area where guys needed help and he tries to actually provide help.
Wow I just had a weird and sad thought. If that site were to add nude photos (which technically can’t be done because OK Cupid doesn’t allow nudity) and include personal information (like names and locations) you know what it would be?
It would be isanyoneup.com ver2.0
OMG Danny, I thought the same thing! How different is it from IsAnyoneUp?
It’s just too much of a stretch for the article, but it’s an “ad absurdum” to consider.
Nice guys don’t go around telling people how wonderful they are.
The nice guys on NGOOKC do. The site is down, but I remember that one of the photos had the terms: “Ladies, I’m the guy that all your friends say don’t exist . . . a genuine nice guy . . . All my female friends don’t understand why I’m single. I say, ‘You’re the bitches who won’t let me touch your titties.’
Except there were more typos. That is the kind of stuff on the site.
“The nice guys on NGOOKC do. The site is down, but I remember that one of the photos had the terms: “Ladies, I’m the guy that all your friends say don’t exist . . . a genuine nice guy . . . All my female friends don’t understand why I’m single. I say, ‘You’re the bitches who won’t let me touch your titties.’”
To me sound more like a prank profile or a fake texts. But perhaps a dude with strong issues. But either case none of this condone bullying or illegal acts like displaying to the public personal pictures of other people. BTW what evidence do we have that the text presented on the blog, is the actual one of the dating profile of the guy?
And im surprised that somebody try excuse to horrible acts (bully) with the lame excuse that the person in question is horrible. Hello? its like trying to wash mud away with other mud.
If the anglophone society try to justify bully and marginalization with this or that excuse, no wonder you have so many mass shooting in the states. Change your attitude toward the less fortunate people, and perhaps the shootings will vanish like magic, Worth a try, dont you think?
ciao
That is actually a Good point Supertypo. There is still Much work to do to stop and prevent bullism. But im not so sure that is The main reason behind The mass shootings.
But online and offline bullism is surely between The causes and that blog and their supporters
Are to no help. They dont stop The (fake) nice guy tm phenomena and They only manage in make the lifes of some lonely and miserable guy Even more lonely and even more miserable.
Three things.
On male sexual entitlement: I’m uncomfortable with the term ‘entitlement’ used here, because, at least to me, the word ‘entitlement’ comes with it a connotation of something that is expected unearned. That is to say, if I’m entitled to something, I don’t have to do anything to earn it – I have a right to it, and just like I don’t have to earn my right to freedom or earn my right to life, I shouldn’t have to earn my right to this.
But even the Nice Guys TM are trying to ‘earn’ sex from women. They’re actively trying to do the things they think women want, in hopes of attracting that woman’s romantic or sexual interest.
I think the problem isn’t “Men think they’re entitled to sex”, but rather “Men think sex is something they can earn from women.”
And I don’t think they’re entirely in the wrong to try to be a ‘nice guy’ when so many women will say “I wish I could meet a nice guy!” What they don’t seem to understand is that women want a nice *boyfriend*, not a nice *friend*. As I’ve told other guys, playing the “Nice Guy TM” role is like walking into a restaurant with a help wanted sign and telling them about how you’ve been working as a server for ten years, you can carry a hundred pounds with one hand and remember the orders of a table of thirty and you’re fluent in seven languages — but then being upset when they don’t hire you as a cook. In other words, you’re selling yourself for the wrong position.
Anyway, another analogy I’ve made on here, in the recent past:
If you are starving and another person is passing you on the street, and you know they have money, you have about three ways of trying to get it from them. You can attempt to rob them, you can try to steal it, or you can beg them or try to earn it.
The way our society conceptualizes sex as something that women own and men want leads men to seeing themselves as the starving person in the hypothetical. So you get the ones who try to get sex through violence, threats, or coercion – Rapists who rob sex from women. You have Pick Up Artists and Bad Boys who try to trick women into sex. And you have Nice Guys who try to pressure women into giving them sex by making them feel bad (“Can you spare a dollar, I haven’t eaten in a week”) or acting as though sex has been earned (akin to the guy who washes your windshield without permission and expects payment).
The heart of the problem is that we’re trained to see sex as something women have and men want, rather than something that each sex has equally, wants equally, and can take equal pleasure in engaging in.
Oh right, the third thing:
On inarguable anger: I had a conversation with a feminist once, where she was talking about her experiences with gender. When I talked about my experiences with gender, she said she “Felt like I was talking over her.” When I said I wasn’t, she angrily told me that “you said my feelings were wrong!”
Because, apparently, if you phrase an accusation (“You are doing X”) as a statement of feelings (“I feel like you are doing X”), no one can ever argue with you, lest they be “telling you your feelings are wrong” or “disregarding your feelings”.
Not a central point, of course, but it crossed my mind.
I think another part of the problem is the social pressure on women not to voice their actual desires, but to voice only the aspects of a partner they want that will not reflect badly on them. Of course it happens to men too, in other ways.
As Ozy put it, “Men are orcs and women are elves.” So when women are asked what they want in a partner, they have to give Elf Reasons – they want a guy who is nice and sweet and funny and thoughtful and generous. And all of those things are true, but they leave out that they also what a guy who is handsome or sexy or dresses well or is tall or has a big dick or is good in bed or has money – those are Orc Reasons, and admitting to those would make her a slut or a gold digger or shallow and superficial. So she only expresses that she wants “nice sweet and funny” but ends up going for “sexy and charming and funny and arrogant”. And the guy who tries to win her over by being nice and sweet and funny fails to gain her interest, because he’s lacking those other qualifications that she isn’t allowed to express.
As I said, the same thing happens for men. We’re pressured to give Orc Reasons for wanting one partner over the other. We want big breasts and a nice ass and good blowjobs, or a Blonde or Redhead or Asian. We’re not supposed to want emotional connection or someone we can feel safe being insecure or vulnerable with or care what kind of books she reads or subjects she studies – those are Elf Reasons and what are you some kind of faggot? Real Men want to fuck, Little Boys want to cuddle.
Interesting points.
Thank you. I apologize for the tone I took with you in our previous encounter on the other comment thread. It was rude and unnecessary.
“I think another part of the problem is the social pressure on women not to voice their actual desires, but to voice only the aspects of a partner they want that will not reflect badly on them.”
Great point. No woman will openly state that she wants a 6’2″ motorcycle gang-looking guy to bang her hard and have sweaty balls in her face.
The NGOKC site is using bullying tactics. They’re bullying the men on both ends of the nice guy spectrum; the guys who really seem to be assholes and the guys who really seem to be merely awkward or unfortunate.
While I don’t agree with pillorying the assholes or the merely misguided, I’ll admit that I’m more concerned about the impact the bullying might have on the awkward, unfotunate men. I think they are entitled to consideration when they express their frustration in a respectful manner. Doing so on an internet dating site is asking for disaster, but then no one is obligated to provide that disaster, especially in an organized, self righteous mob action like this. I also wonder if there’s a visceral reaction to men whining about their plight that motivates some of this.
A sight that selected portions of Nice Guy profiles for critique but didn’t identify the authors with a name or picture or join date might have some value. Sure, some people would be recognized, but many fewer than with NGOKC as it’s apparently set up. Rather than their purpose of harming people in an act of vengence, an alternative might list examples of clearly ugly or questionable profile selections and ask men if they see themselves portrayed, literally or figuratively, and if they do they might want to know that it’s not a pretty picture. Of course the Nice Guys might just conceal their asshole tendencies, but the nice guys might just agree with the futility of portraying themselves in a negative and not entirely accurate way.
I actually thinking that finding a cute or funny way to completely cover the person’s face and other obvious identifying details would have been just as effective without the risk of ruining someone’s life.
Wow… that website is horrible. If I guy believes its possible to have to many sexual partners he gets put on that website…
That’s disgusting , a man who believes that men and women shouldn’t sleep around in this day and age?! what was he thinking? ¬_¬
Sigh, Honestly though that website seems to bully and target men with self confidence issues on a matter that really isn’t their fault. Many men are brought up thinking that if they treat women with respect and be the “nice guy” they will get the dates while in reality most women aren’t interested in that which leads to the women date jerks comments.
This website states that men who fit that category of a nice guy and want to sleep with a woman are disgusting, while men who aren’t in that category can sleep around all they want. its illogical and harmful.
What a horrible site of pointless/shameless mocking –
Any lawyers in the house? From OKCupids Terms of Use:
Access and proprietary rights:
The pages and content on this Website may not be copied, distributed, modified, published, or transmitted in any other manner, including use for creative work or to sell or promote other products. Violation of this restriction may result in infringement of intellectual property and contractual rights of Humor Rainbow or third parties which is prohibited by law and could result in substantial civil and criminal penalties.
OH WOW.
I think that OKCupid would have to be the ones to sue, and they’d have a really good case because who is going to join OKCupid if they’re so subjected to mockery?
If I were single I would have quit OK Cupid the moment I saw the first meme, which ever was first. But the Fedoras of OK Cupid would have been enough to make me not join, even though it’s not OKCupid’s fault at all.
Makes me glad I quit that site about six or seven months ago.
hopefully okcupid gets onto this quickly for moral, and business reasons, and gets tumblr to delete NGOKC
The glaring omission I see in the article is even a notional effort to offer meaningful advise, only derision and mocking contempt.
The only two options for these unfortunate guys seems to be adopt the pick up artist lifestyle, so at least then they’ll be getting cut down for their conduct after sex, or the go their own way approach and cease interacting with the anyone of the female gender in anything other than a platonic, arms-length fashion.
Is this what the readers of Jezebel really want?
The more I look at this site the more terrible it reveals itself to be.
One guy that shows up on the site has 3 bits of info and one question that supposedly damns him.
“For you personally, is abortion an option in case of an accidental pregnancy?” to which he says “No.”
Apparently his personal choices inherently mean that he hates women or something. Maybe the folks behind the site are trying to say that since he doesn’t think its an option that automatically means he would try to force his personal preference on a woman.
I’m calling it. The people behind this site are taking some examples of truly loathsome men and propping them up as a shield so they can take cheap shots at guys that don’t meet their personal preferences.The site is bullshit.
So, maybe this is why so many people use someone else’s photo for their online profile or use a false identity. (Not like I would ever to that, of course….) You never know when someone else is going to circulate all sorts of nasty things about you with that photograph.
Hell, for that matter, how do we really know those men really did write the things that they’re accused of writing? People are far too gullible on the internet.
The main problem I have with the article is the labeling of assholes as Nice Guys™.
The niceguys TM theme is meant as a rebuttal to any man who has ever complained of being friendzoned.
What this is about is shutting down the friend zone complaints of men and portraying a lamentation that somebody you are crushing on isn’t into you (or on the worst side, the love prospect openly manipulated and used the love-lorn person).
What the “niceguy TM” is about shutting down ALL MEN who complain of being friendzoned (truly nice or Niceguy TM assholes). It’s basically saying that men don’t have the right to express frustration over a bummer situation or anger at having been played.
If I started trying to promulgate an “Easy Girl TM” theme about shutting down complaints of ALL WOMEN who had sex on the first date/meeting either falsely believing or being misled that the guy implied a relationship was brewing only to get no answer to her calls as a rebuttal to the “pump and dump” and said that all girls that complained of “pump and dumps” were actually bitches anyway and deserving of their fate, maybe then you could see how harmful the “NiceGuy TM” theme is.
I think it is a very bad idea of you Joanna to give credence to the “Niceguy TM” theme. Much like the actions of OK Cupid attacks, this theme is about shutting down ALL MALE COMPLAINTS about female behavior by besmirching the complainers. It essentially says any man who ever complains of being friend-zoned is secretly an asshole.
It’s indiscriminating in it’s dismissal to those men who have legitimate complaints.
Also, I think this OK Cupid attack tactics is wrong EVEN WHEN the guy hits all the bullet points of being a NiceGuy TM asshole in sheeps clothing.
Nobody deserves unmitigated hate for superflous arbitrary reasons.
John, go back and read it again.
First, I made a HUGE distinction between Nice Guy™ and nice guys. I even called my brother a nice guy.
I also said that I thought the term Nice Guy™ was very problematic.
Feel free to apologize.
“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.”
The culture has given us back though a proper response to anger: mockery. The “u mad bro?” troll face is the best response to 99% of all the anger out there, feminist or otherwise. Laugh at them.
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/145/2/5/u_mad__by_gnuenguemo-d3h620v.jpg
I am SO using this next time. Thanks.
Funny thing is while this is happening there are articles, sites and shows about woman complaining about their love life.
Instead of the anger and mockery men get, woman get sympathy and support.