Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 13, 2013 in Feminism, Masculism | 14 comments

Nice guys, Nice Guys™, and Nice Guys℠

The Original Nice Guy

Good Guy Greg is nice to everyone

Until recently, the phrase “nice guy” denoted nothing more to me than the usual meaning that those words would ordinarily convey to native speakers of English, something akin to “kind fellow” or maybe “pleasant bloke.” This is presumably because I slept through Feminism 101 and never showed up to my assigned pick-up artist lectures. Fairly recently, though, I’ve discovered that the phrase has two distinct meanings, each fairly well disconnected from the original.

Here is the first one, courtesy of feminist theory:

“[A] male with a fixation on seducing women by being nice to them, most stereotypically by providing a woman with emotional support when she is having difficulties with another male partner.”

This sort of man is referred to as a Nice Guy™ where the TM presumably stands for “Terrible Male” because they are not actually nice to women at all, but are  ”in reality only motivated by attempts to passively please women into a relationship and/or sex” and expect some form of “sexual ‘payment’ for their kindness and generosity.” I’ve never actually met anyone like this, but then I have to presume that they exist or else why would so many women be writing about it?

On the other side of the Deep Rift between the genders, we have the Pick-Up Artist community, who seem to think that a nice guy is someone who is genuinely kind and polite but generally finds that this gets him nowhere with the ladies, because he lacks a proper sense of “entitlement” as they say. In PUA parlance, the Nice Guy is:

The typical [Average Frustrated Chump] who is very nice and polite to people, but oftentimes lacks a certain selfishness that conveys his own self worth and attractiveness.

I’m going to dub this sort of fellow the Nice Guy℠ where SM stands for “Sensitive Male” because he sounds like a generally pleasant bloke, who apparently has recurring trouble with the sort of women whom the PUA community prefer to target. So far as I can tell, the PUA’s don’t seem to consider the possibility that interpersonal kindness can sometimes lead to fulfilling long-term relationships, but then I have to presume that this sort of thing isn’t generally on their to-do list.

The key similarity between the Nice Guy™ and the Nice Guy℠ is that neither one is considered worthwhile in and of himself, or in relation to his male peers, but both are evaluated solely in terms of their relations with women. The key differences between the Nice Guy™ and the Nice Guy℠ is that the former is feigning niceness because he feels entitled to sexual reward, while the latter is genuinely nice because he does not feel entitled enough. Where the feminists see sexual predators bent upon seduction by feigned friendship, the masculists see friendly but frustrated chumps who generally fail at seduction precisely because they see friendship as a viable path to love.

I’m not sure whether I find the feminist or the masculist reconceptualization of this hitherto innocuous phrase more offensive to my personal sensibilities, but surely the idea that men should be considered primarily in terms of their sexual relationships (or lack thereof) runs profoundly against the less-than-radical notion that men are people – ends in and of themselves – to be accorded a certain human dignity regardless of whether they consistently attract (or are attracted to) women.

Having never actually dated as an adult, I can only know about the dating scene from my single friends, juicy gossip, and online hearsay. That said, I’d be interested in hearing whether you guys have come across any outstanding specimens of either Nice Guys™ or Nice Guys℠ in the wild. Are they really out there, and every bit as one-dimensional as we’ve been lead to believe?

 

  • http://www.skepticink.com/notung Notung

    Here is the first one, courtesy of feminist theory:

    Is that really ‘feminist theory’? Or is it just some of the usual trite rubbish you see knocking around on angsty teenagers’ blogs? I ask because, knowing some ‘proper’ feminists (i.e. they’re actually doing Women’s Studies PhDs, etc. and seem to know what they’re on about) I think they’d bang their heads against the wall reading that. I note that the sources for the article are Tumblr blogs and webcomics…

    The ‘PUA’ garbage is equally infuriating.

    • jjramsey

      I don’t think it’s either feminist theory or trite rubbish. It’s just an observation on how some guys who think they are “nice” actually behave. Interestingly enough, there’s a web comic, apparently written by a “nice guy,” that ends up illustrating this dynamic.

    • http://www.skepticink.com/notung Notung

      I agree that there exist people who might be described as ‘hypocrites’, but I just mean the way they talk about the phenomenon seems to suggest that it only applies to men, and the property of being ‘nice’.

    • http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      I am not qualified to perform the demarcation between proper feminist theory and mere online dilettantism, but I should note that the Geek Feminism wiki is generally taken quite seriously and often referenced as authoritative by the feminist wing of the freethought movement.

    • http://www.skepticink.com/notung Notung

      By ‘the feminist wing of the freethought movement’, do you mean who I think you mean? If so, I don’t take them as representative of feminists – primarily for the sake of feminists!

    • http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt
    • http://www.www.skepticink.com/incredulous Edward Clint

      aren’t you in danger of “no true scotsman”-ing? I think people who are media personalities that call themselves feminist authorities are de facto social feminist authorities if their media channels have a substantial following. You can think of them what you wish, but the facts are that many people take them to be feminist experts, which means for the sake of that particular community, they are.

    • http://www.skepticink.com/notung Notung

      Perhaps – it’s just that ‘feminist theory’ conjures up the idea of the feminist intellectual, rather than someone who merely likes to call themselves a feminist.

      Also, it would be a shame to let some people ruin a movement that has been so valuable in the past.

      But yes, perhaps it’s a ‘no true feminist’ fallacy. The trouble with terms like ‘feminism’ is that it’s so vague. When we use it we could mean a whole host of things.

    • Vic

      “Also, it would be a shame to let some people ruin a movement that has been so valuable in the past.”

      Depends partly on whether the term “marxist theory” invokes Josef Stalin.

      While not even marxists can agree for sure how THAT discussion pans out, depending on one’s personal conviction, you can find a whole spectrum of people who are in one way or another associated with a hated or loved ideology.

      Which is why I prefer to look at the real consequences, the acts, rather than the persons’ characters or the words on paper. Not that these should be disregarded entirely, but in the end of the day, actions show the true colors.

      Same for Islam, christianity etc. Whatever sick or benign thoughts people have in their head, it’s what they do with their influence and power which will define one’s image of them and their ideology.

    • jjramsey

      True, but much of what’s on the Geek Feminism wiki isn’t primarily about feminist theory (which I take to be an academic thing that one might see in a Women’s Studies curriculum) but rather assorted things that pertain to feminism and various activities done by and for “geeks.”

    • http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      I’m inclined to agree with this demarcation between published academia and web-based memes, but I’m used to being able to demarcate “theories” in terms of rigorous testing and repeatability. Maybe the groundbreaking theories of academic feminism are testable and verifiable in some way, but I’m not well-versed enough in the field to know if that has ever been done.

    • Vic

      I doubt that one will find the term “Nice guy” in academic feminist literature.

      But
      academic feminist literature, even if it were as egalitarian,
      scientific and non-partisan as sometimes claimed, does not dominate the
      public image or the political debate. That’s pop-feminism. And I’d say
      that the “Nice Guy” is a serious and grave issue discussed and battled
      by pop-feminism.

      Not sure if this falls under the “angsty teenager blog” category:
      http://community.feministing.com/2011/11/13/regarding-nice-guys-and-why-women-only-date-jerks-a-critique-of-a-masculine-victim-cult/

      On
      the other hand, while the PUAs are certainly piggish, if a concept is
      rendered toothless because it’s just promoted by “angsty teenage
      bloggers”, I think that applies as well to the “wannabe-casanovas”.

  • Brenda Weber

    “fixation on seducing women by being nice to THEM” See, this right here. Has it ever occurred to proponents of the Nice Guy (terrible male) position that it’s possible to judge a potential mate by observing how he treats, ya know, OTHER PEOPLE? This is why the neo-feminists you speak of are considered selfish, because they are. They see all situations, all actions, all interactions through their own personal lens, refusing to even attempt to view the world from another viewpoint. It’s all about them. I’m sorry to all you fellas for that, for what it’s worth it annoys me to no end as well.

    • http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/ Damion Reinhardt

      I am inclined to cut the non-academic 3rd-wavers some slack on this one, because it looks like they are just trying to deconstruct the original PUA conception of a Nice Guy (SM) who is unlucky in sexual relations because he doesn’t feel entitled to more than friendship. Of course, it’s not a particularly insightful approach to simply negate all the key features of the purported construct, but that seems to be what happened here, e.g. “You PUA’s say he isn’t entitled enough, but we WRA’s say he is far too entitled!”