Monday, April 30, 2012

Dismantling The Nice Guy Stigma, Notes About MRA+, and Gaming And Intimacy

I think the idea of the "Nice Guy Syndrome" has to be revamped, especially when dealing with feminists.

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.  

Saturday, April 28, 2012


One of the things I've been ruminating about on my vocation has been a topic that has captured my attention for some time---male disposability.  Despite what occurred with the Costa Concordia (which I believe is not the only incidence of apparent lack of selflessness on men's behalf for women) there has been a strain of belief even in the MRM that most men are somehow hapless in a sense regarding protecting and providing for women.  It's ingrained in us, it's in evolutionary psychological make up of men, it's in our DNA.

Argue as many might attest to this, it's obviously not completely set in stone.  

I do believe that our Western culture amps men's alleged "drive" to engage in self-sacrifice not just because of civilization's sake; it's because someone is benefiting and even exploiting a huge percentage of men.  Whatever belief system you come from perspective-wise, clearly there are forces out that that are pretty darn insecure about men losing faith and trust in society and the tenuous pact between men and women.  Now days, our culture wants women to be supported no matter what foibles and failures they engage in; if men don't comply, the state will, although the state often garners financial and the toil of men by "legalized" extortion.  

We're supposed to be content with being model beta males, and if we don't like it, it's tough shit---even if we are given nothing return.  This is not the most healthy condition, obviously.

Men's interests and needs are always at a backseat, if salient at all.  We're supposed to be happy being fem-serfs (although so many women incessantly seem to be happy at being unhappy) and not place our happiness first.   A man that does strive to carve is own path is somehow seen from anything to useless or a pariah.  He's a narcissistic jerk even if he's not intentionally harming someone else.   Shame and even vile contempt are often heaped upon men who break ranks and even question why men should ultimately appease your modern Ameriskank; nevermind parasitical sociopaths that are no good for society get admiration by the truckloads---that are at or near the apex of popularity---and are rewarded by so many women who are eager to even be in a harem of sorts with them.  And, of course, the rest of us have to scramble for the leftovers or don't have a good mate to spare.  

If you don't kow tow, you're a self-centered, misogynist asshole.  Hell, there are some women online practically screaming it and demonizing any man that they deem as such.

If men really understood the biases and embitterment against them and let it sink it permanently, the landscape of the dynamic of between the sexes would be very, very different.  It truly terrifies women if men were to stop self-sacrifice and expect women to own up.  Real, raw equality is something that very few women can rise to the challenge and uphold.   While there are no hard and fast rules for MGTOW, I do believe there is a strong, deep undercurrent that is the root of men's rights issues---acknowledged or not---that more men are gradually perturbed by being perceived and treated as second class citizens and are waking up to that fact.  

And no, "bitter" or not, it goes deeper than not getting a date for a time or just not looking like the cool metrosexual Ameriskanks claim they want.  It cuts to the core of our souls, and it's surprising that more men aren't downright furious about it.  Feminists have no idea how much men show restraint and control in this aspect; we are not given merit points or anything of the sort, and no matter how much scorn and abuse are lobbed at us, we are supposed to be still loving and forgiving at the end of the day.  

Whatever the reason, there are people who have an awful time of seeing men as human beings rather than just human doings.  The irony is that feminism has been stated as the belief that women are people, too.  This is hogwash; feminism was (and is) about female supremacy and having women possess ultimate say-so on anything to legalities to sexual intimacy; somewhere along the line men's priorities were not of import.  

Now, I do think it will come to pass that men will have to be viewed as people, too, regardless if feminists and their cohorts like or not.  Perhaps it will not be in my life time, but the meme is out and about, and no amount of politically correct brainwashing or grooming men to be white knights will dampen the word.