I lurked on a blog which there was rather extensive discussion about it. It's a fairly trafficked feminist one with an OP that has made quite a name for herself, including not apologizing for attaching stigma to white men she blasted years ago. It's curious has to why exactly she feels the need to perpetuate the nice guy mythic nonsense. Of course, she's a towering moralist so she's above the very subject she claims righteous indignance. But being a feminist, that's a given.
It was also worthy of note the virtually all of the posters blamed the "nice guys" they interacted with were at fault for their own behaviors. Nevermind these same feminists attested quite many experiences with them. Give me break; if they detest the mentality so much, perhaps shunning them would be in order if possible. Is this an option they would rather not eschew?
Also don't even bother to think for a moment that these women are capable of the traits they state they abhor. They are, but will not readily admit it even under pressure. This includes passive-aggressiveness, selfishness, ulterior motives, self-entitlement, and even feeling scorned if not expecting the sex they want at command. It's quite concurrent with Ameriskank behavior. Too bad they largely refused to see their own projection of those attributes themselves.
If they were so adamant about not rewarding "nice guys," they would procure not even dating them in their personal lives. Before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, if I continued to date clear cut Ameriskanks and got burned over and over, I wouldn't expect a lot of sympathy once I woke up to the fact my attraction was part of the problem and did nothing to curtail it. These same feminists don't bother to proclaim they are rewarding those same men they bitch bitterly about. Again. And again.
I'm sure they believe they are the better half of their foibles concerning their toxic relationships. They are egregious liars.
I think the term "nice guy" should be laid to rest.
It's intriguing how everyone believes they aren't, or don't want to be perceived as such. Granted, I think that the expression should be purged and another take its place; one that would describe certain levels of traits that can be identified. Social introversion isn't a handicap or synonymous with dysfunction per se; it has some aspects it can be positive or self-defensive (such as avoiding toxic relationships), but so many people seem to get the term confused.
Not to mention the moronic pseudo-adage, "Nice guys aren't really nice guys anyway." Okay . . . you towering moral bastion of feminist morality---ahem, to pardon the phase---nice try.
It's often employed as an excuse to gravitate towards creeps and cads. And treat good men like shit. It's truly a pathetic rationalization.
Contrary to common belief, you push a man against the ropes enough, even all but the most Caspar Milquetoast of men will come out (proverbially speaking, at least) swinging. It's human nature. It's inevitable. Men have a large capacity to take a good heap of dung they shouldn't without much complaint (as women think they do often). But some people have more sensitive triggers than others, and saying and doing anything and expecting a man to take abuse as a "real man" is the hubris of fools, masochists, fake alphas, and, of course, feminists.
The stunning conceit of an Ameriskank is thus: "I can get away with anything I want with a nice guy, he should be a real man and take his lumps and not bitch too much and still cherish me."
By dubbing someone as an average frustrated chump or nice guy---in the negative sense that many utilize---people categorize someone in a confining box and give excuses to treat them as such. And they are surprised when that same labelled man defies expectation or protests being a doormat. Suddenly, he's a royal prick when he's not ripe for personal (or other types) of exploitation. And yet the social perps who treat a man as such get dumbfounded and pissed because men refuse to conform to the false dichotomy of nice guy/bad boy, and clearly don't want to acknowledge that they created the problem in the first place.
There has been some heated debate about MRA+ and how men can possibly find real love despite the pitfalls and dreaded landscape of US relationships, whether it be casual dating up to marriage and family. I ultimately believe that it is the choice of each man whether or not he engages women---and what type of woman he desires and the nature of his relationship to that said woman. Men who choose not to involve themselves with women should never be shamed or stigmatized; it is obvious that there exists risks for men dating US women and I don't have to craft a list for many to understand that point. But it is not my position to belittle those who seek the depth of a profound bond.
Unfortunately, most men---myself included---grew up with an idealized conception of what their mate was going to be like. And had their hopes dashed and crushed again and again. By leading men down the primrose path and not providing them with a grounded sense of realism and what women can be like is anything from naive to irresponsible. There are quite a good percentage of them that are reproductive opportunists; even irrational self-interest in a woman is still self-interest. Men who are practicing rational self-interested are often viewed as selfish misogynists; a woman doing the same is pragmatic and smart.
For the longest time, I pined for my own Kate Beckinsale, a woman who possessed a set of qualities so many women profess they generally have without feeling a need to demonstrate them very much. Even those who are not starry-eyed dreamers will wax that if I don't believe in it somehow, it will never happen no matter what the odds.
Trouble is, I actually did believe I had a soulmate that would fulfill my desire for a deep companionship. It took some doing, but after a time I awoke from that dream. I cannot tell you enough how painful and even traumatic it was in the process---I made it on the other side, although I'm not entirely unscathed.
Even seeking the equivalent in a mate is exceedingly difficult as a realist; and as a man you are typically blamed if you don't attract the right women---even if you avoid the bad and walking damaged for a legitimate female cohort.
It is for the better I no longer buy into the feminine mystique and peer behind the veil; I honestly believe this wonderment was one of the main factors why a good friend of mine slowly drank himself to death. Granted, it was one of a few core elements, but it was obvious to myself. After the second break up of the only woman he openly declared his love for, he went into a such a bout of heavy drinking and depression he almost died two years before his actual passing.
It is truly up to us to educate ourselves on the nature of the female dark side, feminism, and Ameriskank behavior and spread the word. Men have been living under the lie of how without women they are nothing; we have to smash this modern myth like Thor wielding his Mjolnir hammer with a calculated fury.
Zed/Zenpriest has stated something profound about gaming a future wife or one in practice; if one feels the need to constantly employ player tactics to gain the upper hand with a spouse, you will never feel true intimacy.
There's a lot to be said about that. I'm not as overtly critical of pick up artistry all the time, but "game" has little answer to obtaining real trust and intimacy with someone you must constantly game in order to dominate and lead. If you are not in the position to steer naturally and have to employ a set of manipulations to keep personal power going, it is not exactly a happy situation and can even lead to resentment and mistrust.
If you have to game your wife so she doesn't move on to the bigger, better deal or gradually steamroll you, you don't have a marriage that is wholly sound. It's just a matter of fact.
Trust is vital to any healthy relationship. Many relationships aren't always short-lived, but those that don't have trust as a cornerstone are certainly strained to begin with. In all seriousness, those who practice game may have some answer that could help, but I haven't seen one outstanding one that would work in a satisfactory manner.
If one wishes to have that deep bond between husband and wife, brinkmanship should not be an overriding portion of it. Sadly, even in marital situations where gaming hasn't been known, it's often present as well.