Venting of a "friendzoned" AS dude

Post Reply New Topic

Antifeminist is the keyword here. Anyone who believes any of that bs has lost any shred of self respect. Internalized misandry is pretty rampant nowadays.

Did somebody call?

I'm going to go ahead and guess that when you swallowed that red pill it caught in your throat for a moment and stopped the oxygen to your brain for a wee bit too long, and then went and did a number on your intestines, which would account for you talking such shite.

Whatever your struggles with self-hatred, it's not feminism that's the issue, and it's not projecting your agonised/desired inadequacies onto other men that's going to solve them.

Well excuse us for not being dumb enough to believe in notion that "nice guys only see women as objects, and that sexist jerks don't" like that makes ANY LOGICAL SENSE AT ALL!

You have to be pretty inexcusably stupid to believe that.

You also have to believe women are the ball in the game of patriarchy. Have to be pretty messed up to view women as objects with no agency rather than equals who can think for themselves outside of the constant victim complex.

Men who are nice - in short, 'nice guys' - don't see women as objects. But they also understand that 'nice' is the bare minimum of civilised disposition and interaction, an ethical good in itself, and do not think it is or should be, in itself, both knee-weakeningly attractive to the opposite sex and a guarantee/obligator of 1) a girlfriend or 2) sexual intercourse. These 'nice guys' make up the male part of 'nice people', the majority of humans, who actually just go around being nice because, you know, why the hell wouldn't you?

They are distinct from Nice Guys, a name and f*****g philosophy based on a f*****g quip from a baseball manager in the 1940s that 'nice guys finish last'. A man looks at his life, particularly the romantic aspect, considers he has 'finished last', and from there assuming the quip is an almost axiomatic set-in-stone truth, decrees himself a Nice Guy. They see women as objects as they are quite unable to relate to them as people, and believe that their simply being 'nice' should guarantee them a girlfriend. These Nice Guys, though utterly opposed to feminism, share a paranoia about the prevalence of sexism way beyond Andrea Dworkin's nightmares, seeing it in the character and actions of any and every heterosexual man who has a partner.

It is hoped that an epiphany similar to the ending of Matheson's 'I Am Legend' may yet set them on the path to basic decency, clear reasoning, and good lovin'.



Or a strawman.

In other words, it's just when the nice guy FAILS at getting a girl, he somehow is a misogynist who thinks women are objects. See there is no rhyme or reason, just irrationality for the sake of irrationality.

If I remember it correctly, you accused me of generalizing too much, and now you write this?

It is clearly not proven that Nice Guys are any of the things you claim they are. They could just as well be ordinary NDs that have failed with girls, they could lack resources (unemployed), or be judged as ugly.

and jerks like Trump and Hugh Hefner are not misogynists and don't see women as objects, right?

How meta.

No, the Nice Guy is always a misogynist who thinks women are objects. He's also a misandrist, but that's another matter.

Being nice is in no way a barrier that keeps one from getting a girlfriend.



You generalise too much in the belief you are being 'scientific'. I was generalising in the name of humour. The Nice Guys I am talking about are very much as I describe. Remember, I made a distinction between 'guys who are nice' and Nice Guys. They are quite separate. 'Guys who are nice' can have all sorts of problems getting a romantic partner, but they don't make their being 'nice' a core part of their identity and appeal; they recognise 'nice' as a civic basic, a given, not something performed in exchange for the girl of their choice.



What part of what I wrote suggested I would think such a thing?

Answer the question.

You're not the boss of me.

But, in the spirit of exchange of ideas:



From what I know of Trump and Hefner, no, not right. Really quite wrong, in fact.

Would you now be so kind as to answer what part of what I wrote gave the impression that I thought otherwise?

Another strange generalization.

You define a "Nice Guy" as somebody that think being nice is enough to get a girlfriend. I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects. It's quite natural that a guy that has no idea about how to get a girlfriend in the culturally accepted way, and that is nice (for real), might come to the conclusion that being nice is the reason he doesn't succeed. That's an easy mistake to make. It doesn't imply that he sees women as objects. I think the only one's that talk about women as objects are feminists themselves. It's a kind of jargon used in feminist circles that has little to no relevance for ordinary men.

Also, about the only category of men that might think of women as objects are the alphas, because they have enough suitors to be able to get away with that. Yet, the hate of feminists is not geared towards this group, but towards the group that complains about not getting a girlfriend.



But you only defined Nice Guys as somebody that thought being nice would result in them getting a girlfriend. That is not something that in itself means they think they are entitled to something. About every guy in the world, nice or not, think that they should be able to get a girlfriend. That's part of being human.

Besides, how would you define a girl that think being nice would result in her getting a boyfriend? Nice Girl? Will she also be labelled with diverse insults because she feels entitled to a boyfriend?

Last edited by rdos on 04 Sep 2016, 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're smart, you will figure it out on your own.

No, they hate men, too. Including themselves.



I'd say there's more to it than that, and even with cherry-picking that aspect, you're looking at it wrong.



Because that's part of the definition.



Nothing to disagree with there. I think the chap should have his reasoning set right, incase he wanders into the rank labyrinthine 'reasoning' of Nice Guydom.



Doesn't surprise me. That I disagree won't surprise you.



Nice Guys think their being 'nice' (because what we haven't touched on here is the biting irony of their utter lack of niceness) is and should be a virtue sufficient to get them a girlfriend. That's entitlement.

There's a difference between looking at oneself and thinking, 'yeah, I'm not too shabby, I'll go and try my luck with the ladies' and thinking that niceness in itself should be rewarded with a girlfriend.



In jest, but also sort of seriously: no girl would be so stupid. The world has given her quite different messages.

It's not would. It's should.

I don't know - what is the insult du jour for jaw-droppingly hypocritical entitled female idiots utterly lacking in self-awareness?

Then I think you need to expand on the definition, and exclude quite a few guys that think being nice will get them a girlfriend. In fact, I think your new group of Nice Guys is rather minimal.



I think the entitlement part is not clear. I claimed that all guys believe they will get a girlfriend, regardless if they are nice or not, which, according to your definitions, appears to make them entitled to a girlfriend. If this is not so, I don't see what is specific for the Nice Guys that make them entitled while others are not.



No difference whatsoever. It is (at least was) common thought that being nice and hardworking would make you a suitable mate. When you discover this is not happening to you, you get a feeling of being fooled by people.

Your usage of "entitled" and "reward" instead of "expects" really doesn't make much of a difference here. The only thing this word-game does is to through insults on people that fail with relationships.