'Girls love jerks!...too many women who could easily be in a healthy relationship instead choose the cliffhanger...'
March 1st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"As much as I hate to say it, girls love jerks!...too many women who could easily be in a healthy relationship instead choose the cliffhanger ending of dating a jerk that walks with a swagger, winks at anything that moves, and always has a one-liner at the ready."
Though feminist bloggers often fall all over themselves to deny it, I think one of the very real grievances young men have is the way women, despite all of their complaints about men, are usually not interested in nice guys. I saw one men's activist several years ago write on his website, "Women say they want one thing, but they sleep with another," and it's often true.
When I taught high school, students often came to me with their problems. Sometimes the girls would come to me with problems about their boyfriends. Often they would come in groups. Time and time and time again I would see a girl who could have had practically any guy in the school she wanted instead go way, way out of her way to have a relationship with a jerk. (The jerk was often a gang member). Then, when things don't work out with the jerk, or when the jerk acts like, well, a jerk, they are shocked and angry.
I remember one time asking a girl the following question -- "You could pick practically any guy you want. Why don't you just go find a guy who thinks he's lucky to be with you? Who will be good to you because he's a nice, good hearted guy, who is pleased with his good fortune? Why don't you just find a nice guy, and have a relationship with him?
The girl and her two friends giggled, and all three of them practically said the same thing at once -- "Nice is boring."
The article below by Christine Hassler (pictured) and Jason Ryan Dorsey discusses the problem with girls and "jerks." I have mixed emotions about it. On one hand, I think that men sometimes get stereotyped unfairly as jerks. On the other hand, I think it is true that often women do not like "nice guys", and it is time to acknowledge this problem.
Thanks to Dutch Martin, for sending me the story.
DATING TIPS
She Says vs. He Says: Do Girls Really Like Dating Jerks?
By Christine Hassler and Jason Ryan Dorsey
Yahoo! Personals, Feb 24, 2008
SHE SAYS: No, but we think we do. As someone who dated a jerk, whom I now refer to as my "learning experience," I admit to falling under the jerk spell.
Here's how the jerk spell works: we meet the jerk and in some twisted way are seduced by his confidence, charm, and passion. We don't see these as the disguises they are: confidence is really arrogance, charm comes from him being a player, and his passion is being the center of his own universe.
The jerk sniffs out our insecurities and uses them to reel us in with compliments that eventually turn into criticisms. And if we see a red flag, like the time my "learning experience" told me his definition of a relationship was "light, fun and physical," we play mind games with ourselves. We use our normally rational inner voice to convince ourselves that we can tame him or that with the right kind of girlfriend he will lose his jerk armor and transform into a leading man fit for a romantic comedy. Come on ladies, what are we thinking?!
A jerk loves being a jerk -- way more than he loves us. I guess if they've always gotten away with treating people poorly and nobody ever set them straight, why would they change? Besides, a jerk seems to always have an attractive woman on his arm laughing at his mediocre jokes and ignoring his wandering gaze. How? I think it's because deep down every woman wants a challenge or a little danger. It's not really the jerk we like; it's the thrill of the chase, the rush of adrenaline when the jerk's phone number pops up on our cell (which is usually right after last call).
However, it's been my experience that "jerkdom" isn't some phase we can pull a guy out of. Guys only outgrow that phase when life no longer succumbs to their demands. Any woman who has dated a jerk for more than a week knows that it's a hollow relationship that ultimately leaves you disappointed, hurt, and commiserating with your friends.
The only challenge worth overcoming when dating a jerk is to not let him affect or define your self worth. So if there is a jerk out there making your heart go pitter-pat and estrogen is messing with your reasoning, go ahead and let him woo you, but when he asks for your number tell him that you only date guys who prove their value by respecting a woman. If he's a jerk he'll roll his eyes, say you have an attitude and snicker as he leaves. If he sincerely accepts your ground rules, then chances are you should give him at least one date to prove he's relationship material. Although you may not be spellbound at first, the nice guy without all the smooth answers may ultimately fulfill your needs in more meaningful ways.
HE SAYS: As much as I hate to say it, girls love jerks! At least until the jerk stops calling, which is usually right after he gets what he wants. Speaking from the guy's perspective, I've never quite understood what draws sane, attractive, bright women to guys who act like jerks. Maybe it is the thrill of the unexpected. Maybe it is trying to outplay him in his own game. Maybe it is hoping that deep down he is a nice guy and you are going to prove it to your naysayer friends. What I do know is that too many women who could easily be in a healthy relationship instead choose the cliffhanger ending of dating a jerk that walks with a swagger, winks at anything that moves, and always has a one-liner at the ready.
Truth be told, there aren't many nice guys who haven't considered acting like a jerk, especially when they steal your girl (here I speak from experience). However, daydreaming of jerkdom fades as soon as nice guys remember one thing: being a jerk means acting like a jerk all the time. That means causing the mental pain and emotional anguish that drives a girl to phone her friends -- guy friends included -- crying about what the jerk did to her in public on their first date. Even guys bear the brunt of girls who fall head over heels for jerks.
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.687 seconds.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
I still don't see the attraction.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
The actual problem is not that "nice" is boring. It is that women's interior psychological reality is boring.
They (as a species) cannot amuse themselves intellectually. There is no interior landscape, no horizon line.
There are NO significant female philosophers, painters, architects... none.
So, once you rule out thinking abstractly, aesthetics, and building things --- what is left?
Shopping?
Ah, the heart of modern civilization.
Women are going to have to learn to be a whole lot more self-critical if they want to evolve.
Otherwise, society will continue to approve their status as ridiculous human pets.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
Both of these writer miss the larger biological point: Women are designed to reproduce and therefore seek the male of the species with the best survival-adaption qualities.
The guys that fit these qualities are the brutes and not the wimps. They're the big guys with lotos of money, not the thoughtful guys in the library. Even though we have moved into an information-driven society, women's biological urges have not progressed as fast as men have engineered socialtal changes in technology, medicine, etc.
It will always be this way. You can't change biology. You can fake it temporarily, but you can never turn a Beach Boy into a Beastie Boy, metaphorically and musically speaking.
My advice to nerds and intellectuals: Find a subculture where the women appreciate those qualities. Asian culture and Jewish culture value intelligence over muscle. Plus the food is good.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
I mention this subject in my forthcoming book. I believe the lack of strong father figures is the main reason women fall for the jerk. I also attribute it to low self-esteem on the part of the woman. Stable women seek stable men. Insecure women seek jerks. I believe that nice guys should remain nice and refuse to lower their standards by acting like jerks. I believe if a man is comfortable being nice then that confidence will be projected and he could attract women. Women seek confidence too. Bad boy syndrome could only thrive in a matriarchy. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily translate into being a great lay.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
(Tony S) -- "...the best survival-adaption qualities."
I guess your theory would make Donald Trump a poor prospect as a catch?
He's clearly no "brute."
Ever notice that the guys with all the money are not that "big"?
While I appreciate your understanding of evolutionary psychology, it is the size of the WALLET that matters now.
Have you read about the Industrial Revolution?
The Information Age?
"The guys that fit these qualities are the brutes and not the wimps."
Sorry. The wimps not only won, they paid off the brutes to be Sunday amusements on the big plasma TV!
March 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Roy said:
"Sorry. The wimps not only won, they paid off the brutes to be Sunday amusements on the big plasma TV!"
What you leave out is that its the football players who are making the big money on that TV. And they're also the ones in high school and college with Alpha male status.
As women age, money replaces brawn to a degree, but anyone on this board should be well award that the legal system has made it very easy for a women to make a wimpo and his money part ways.
So, again, we're back to: Women use wimps for their money and then go screw the brawny repairman. No matter what anyone says, the fact is that women are designed to like Alpha males, who are jerks by nature because that's the way it has to be.
I recommend everyone check out the Roissy in DC blog and do some searches there for more on this. He explains it better than I ever could.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Tony, if you OWN the football team, none of your employees is making "big money."
Economics 101.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
...I think there's something to be said for the evolutionary cause of this problem. Tough guys give off the caveman impression that they would have no trouble spearing animals to bring back to the cave for food. Nice guys don't. Of course, we have Safeway now so there is no need to spear animals...
March 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Tony,
You hit the nail squarely on the head: the guys with the most swagger get the biggest and best part of the animal to bring home to the family.
Of course the downside is that he mysteriously disappears during the 10th hunt.
DanH
March 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
DanH,
But he comes back to life in the 11th hunt --- the sequel, right?
Excellent comedy and much appreciated!
Good stuff!
March 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Let's see. Women classify any guy who doesn't fawn over her and cater to her whims as a jerk, after the relationship ends. So what? The nice guy, with roses, rings, sonnets, and crisp hundred dollar bills falling out of his pockets gets classified as much worse when their marriage ends. I suppose you believe that too.
Just saying, many women love dumping on men after relationships. Some positively relish it. So take her denouncements, and salt to taste.
It's a shared hallucination, though. Of course all the guys my girl was with before me were jerks! Even if she says they were nice...
March 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I've seen women go for jerks time and time again, while ignoring or worse yet, ridiculing men who would treat them with respect. So now we have a generation of already psychologically damaged women ending up even more psychologically damaged before they finally seek out men who are not jerks. Only this time stable men avoid them for good reason because being involved with an unstable woman is about as dangerous as juggling hand grenades with the safety pins removed. In such a relationship, men are one false accusation from prison, or worse.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
They (as a species)
See how divisive our society has become when in our language we refer to women as a different species!
Tony S is right, about the biological factor: evolution and women select promiscuous men, because then the woman's sons will be promiscuous and her genes will be more effectively propagated.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
This topic is one of the most dear to me in the mens movement. Thanks glenn for covering the issue so eloquently.
I am a creative, sensitive, artistic, androgynous, and introverted person. I am not macho. It just doesn't fit with my personality. I am one of those "too nice" guys that girls often complain about. I also have anxiety issues, which could certainly be construed as weakness. The cool thing is, as a liberated male, I don't see the need to change who I am just to please a female. I am me, and that is enough. I am not attracted to a female who expects me to be disposable, chivalrous, and emotionless anyway. If there is a female out there for me, she can come and find me.
Every time a female chooses an aggressive alpha male, she casts a vote for men to act in the very ways men get criticized for. Females reinforce aggression and lack of feeling in men in this way. I also suspect that one of the reasons there is violence against women in general (such as DV) is because females tend to choose these types of guys. I hear that mike tyson still gets a plethora of fan mail from adoring female fans. Society's restrictive gender roles coupled with a female's high expectations literally seem to "stamp out" emotion and feeling in a male.
The research also reinforces the "male as success object" paradigm (most notably David Buss, with a sample size exceeding 10,000). I suspect that aggression and violence are sometimes correlated with an alpha male's quest for success.
If females and feminists expect males to be sensitive, they shouldn't reinforce the exact opposite behavior in men. I do tire of females incessantly denying the idea that "women like jerks ", probably due to women wanting to denounce personal responsibility for they type of guy they pick. But actions speak louder than words. Nice guys know what I am talking about.
With all this said, however, and contrary to stereotype, I believe that nice guys (or "go to guys") still like sex just as much as jerks do.
The sad thing is that I can already hear the feminists saying: The patriarchy teaches females to value aggression in men!! And we are back to gender-feminist mind control.
MXY
March 1st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
George --
I refer to women as "a different species" because they have insisted upon being just that.
A privileged species, a pampered species, an indulged species, a legally exempt species... etc.
I believe it is a fair and objective expression of the "fairer sex."
March 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
"The nice guy, with roses, rings, sonnets, and crisp hundred dollar bills falling out of his pockets gets classified as much worse when their marriage ends."
I think this is probably true................however..........I wouldnt call this guy a "nice guy"..........I would call him a "chivalrous and manipulated guy". He is sensitive........to her needs.........not his own by showering her with gifts. He may offer his shoulder for her to cry on..........but will she offer hers?
Masculist XY
March 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I've been over this many times myself, and I think the solution is actually simpler than you might think.
Personally, I've had more women be attracted to me than I've had particular women I'm attracted to (I'm only a sophomore in college, so I'm basing this off of high school crushes and whatnot). I wouldn't call myself "macho" by any stretch of the imagination: I'm into artistic stuff, am very introverted (to a fault) about my feelings and thoughts, and generally know much about the virtues of compassion, patience, and understanding. But at the same time, I'm not a weepy wo-man either. I'm distant, brutally honest towards women I interact with, and put nobody on a pedestal. I don't go out of my way to attract women, because most of the time, I'm genuinly not interested (what can I say? I'm picky as all hell. I have the luxury to be picky, thankfully).
And THAT formula, I think, works. It's neither being a "jerk" or being a chivalrous, poetry-reading flowers-bringing wuss. It's a happy medium. I make it damn clear that chivalry is dead to me, and that a woman who wants a relationship needs to earn it, and not have me hand it on a silver platter. But if they can do that, then I can swear I can be the damn best partner I can be, and will always make them my number one priority. That's what it's all about: the happy medium. The best of both worlds.
Being six feet tall, slender, and (judging by my ability to attract girls I don't even know) handsome doesn't hurt either.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
roy --
I agree that there is a lot wrong with the way women have acted recently and responded to feminism. Is the solution to become bitter and hateful? Should we fight hate with hate; force an even bigger divide?
This reaction is unhealthy and unhelpful, and it is quite prevalent within this movement. It almost mirrors feminism's blind anger and unwillingness to listen. I understand why this has happened, due to a lot of pain suffered by many men, and even worse, the fact that society does not acknowledge this pain. But this does not mean that pain and anger should be at the core of the movement's ideals.
I hope this will not become a hate filled reaction movement. I hope it continues to be a rational and progressive movement.
Act - don't react.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
George -- "I hope it continues to be a rational and progressive movement."
There is nothing rational or progressive about being a slave.
An angry slave is a person who is claiming his freedom.
To hate being enslaved is simply to be rational.
Interrogate your logic, please.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Life is a constant challenge in differentiating perceptions versus realities. Relationships are no different, especially when sexuality comes into play.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Guys,
You better be careful about portraying the nerds as victims. Agreed that they (who am i?) are the victim in some sense, not of a gender but of societal arrangement. But we don't want to be doing what feminists did when they started. About the whole dating choices issue, I figure this is why chastity of the person before getting married was considered important. Yet, today's progressive society has lifted that (counterbalance to chivalry?). If a woman knew she cannot just go guy hopping, and a man knew he cannot go woman hopping wont they be much more careful before and during the relationship - in an effect valuing it more? Today the attitude is "that one was a jerk/b*tch .. let me find the next jerk/b*tch".
I find the current dating practise to be like going through all the legos at a lego store to find the right piece to an impossible puzzle and then giving up and settling for whatever you can buy when you are tired of any more "fitting". Result, eventually you regret settling, maybe you should have looked some more... right? Wrong!
March 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I simply reject the term jerk. It's a gender slur. For men who accept it, it's often the sour grapes of unrequited love talking. For women, it's usually a pejorative applied to guys who don't kow-tow to them with china sets. For old grognards, it's a chance to bitch endlessly about the degradation of society due to lack of fathers in families. The jerk becomes a poster boy for everything wrong, an iconic failure, and another target of blame.
I prefer Steve Martin's version. The jerk is just a guy doing the best he can. The problem isn't with the jerk: the problem is with society, with the legislative bodies of the country, who make their decisions about our lives over course of a few hours, and maybe a few brandies. To them, we're all jerks.
Most of the guys who pump and dump, or engage in the behaviors you find so deplorable, are well aware of all the cards stacked against them, by law. They are only behaving rationally. Stop blaming the victim.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I always find this topic interesting because it assumes that the girl/woman is not a jerk in her own right. These sort of articles subtly reinforce the myth that girls/woman can't be faulty -only boys/men can fit that mold. Instead, as Colleen demonstrated a few days ago, it is because XX is perfect and XY is intimidated. I would welcome an article that would focus on why men don't date women who are jerks because if Tyra, Oprah and their daytime kind are any indication that would be a fresh angle to the problem that would benefit from such a question. Nah, that would mean acknowledging that men have opinions, better to engorge anti-depressants and cuddle up with a book by Peggy Drexler to falsely build self-esteem, blame the patriarchy, and justify "going it alone" by being a single mom by choice.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
"They (as a species) cannot amuse themselves intellectually. There is no interior landscape, no horizon line."
Man, what the hell are you talking about?
It's evolutionary. Women will go for the most dominant agressive male because his kids have the best chance of surviving in a harsh world and he can fight of any other men/dangerous animals.
Jesus.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
callum are you signing your posts as "Jesus"? In that case nice to meet you, there are so many people trying to find you.
barsin, get over yourself. This is not about "jerks" or what they do. Sometimes being a jerk helps. This post is about the duality of claims and actions of the young women. The "jerks" just happen to be around to help them follow their choice pattern. There is no victim here, except the guy that gets rejected all the time and then has to settle for someone relational-psychology wise damaged, just because he is a nice guy. I wonder if there is a female equivalent of it too.. but I doubt it, being a "misogynist" and all that.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I learned the hard way that it's unwise to settle, period. Doing that for a man can be a very costly and damaging mistake for a man's finances, health and spiritual well being. The man who does not settle for the basket cases who can wreck his life is no victim, he's avoiding becoming one of a unstable or vindictive woman with the aid of the state. As for jerks, many women are jerks too. As far as I'm concerned, jerks deserve each other like hydrazine deserves nitrogen tetroxide. Let them destroy each other.
Taras
March 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I'm not one of the guys who behave in that fashion, Pankaj. I'm only trying to protect these cans.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Tony S: "you can never turn a Beach Boy into a Beastie Boy"
Hmmm, I wonder who made more money, songs, albums and is now better known...?
March 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
roy, derogatory and simplified statements about women made by people in the men's movement is pretty much THE main reason why I consider just quitting reading these comments from time to time and saying, "You know what, screw it, if they're going to act like this, they can forget my support and fend for themselves." Then I remember that "they" is by no means everyone in the men's movement, and I stay.
You're not helpful. I don't think many fair-minded people would look at your comments and think, "You know, those men's rights guys do have some legitimate concerns and complaints." I think they would look at your comments and think, "This guy is just bigoted against women, and I don't want to be associated with him." The excesses and inequalities of modern feminism don't mean that women are a separate species and can't think about anything but shopping. Maybe you don't care what other people think, but in order to make any progress, you have to care about what other people think. I don't think sweeping generalizations about women as a whole are justified. As I admitted above, sometimes I can be tempted to make unhelpful generalizations myself, but I'm aware of that and realize it's wrong and I don't think you do. You're not being fair, and any movement for equal rights should be about fairness.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Barsin and Pankaj, for what it is worth I liked both of your points and found more commonality than dispute with your respective conclusions.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hmm ... I like this topic because as a female I have to admit I can relate to the enigmatic pull of the jerk most women tend to feel. Not that I'd ever do anything about it. Even if I didn't have a wondeful husband and wasn't happily married, such men are like expensive Gucci bags (sorry for the girly analogy guys :-) .... to be admired at long distances preferably without contact.
That being said, I do believe a balance can be struck. My husband for example still continues to catch my eye even after 20 odd years of marriage ... he's both sensitive and masculine and I'm fortunate.
Sure, the jerk has a problem, but not only is it likely that he knows he has a problem, he's prepared to fix it when he's ready. The women who pursue these men on the other hand are often insecure and uncomfortable in their own skin. They're either not aware of this or they simply choose to ignore it. Whichever it is, they need a hot man to validate their own vanity (both that they're beautiful--which I understand--and that they can change him--which I don't). With this in mind, instead of focusing on why they're in such hot pursuit of the attentions of jerk men, they focus on all the reasons why he should change, but that not they themselves, the only people they CAN change.
Anyhow, I'm not going to be too harsh on this one. I guess this is inherent to our psyche. We have limited control over it, and even those who do are few.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hopefully in the near future, when men and women are standing on genuinely equal footing ... we can look back on the early days of this movement and reminisce. Good ol' Roy will probably be remembered in like fashion as radical feminists Valerie Solanas, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin and that MacKinnon woman.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
R.Don Steele explains this phenomenon in his classic books Hot to Date Young Women for Men Over 35 Vol. I and II. It is one of the core principles of his method.
His basic thesis is that attractive females are bombarded by "nice" behavior from males attempting to mate with them and are this turned off by this approach. He states emphatically that "nice doesn't work". His memory helper is "accomodate=commode".
I am by nature a nice man and it is difficult to play hardass with them, even though it works. My somewhat crazy, dangerous edge does titillate them though. In bed they like it dominant and rough, but loving and respectful. An artist has to be aware always.
Similar to the recent thread about female attire, and how they respond to men who are indifferent instead of men who stare at them.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
All the statements made about evolutionary, instinctual urges and how that decides all is somewhat fallacious. At some point, what was once the totality of all socialization and enculturation begets the new biology–becomes the new instinct. We are and have been for the past 200 years or more, been living in an era– and being socialized and encultured in an era– vastly different from the early human period of prehistory and even the historical period right to the above mentioned time. I know in many ways the same old biological instincts are still there–they take a long time to shed– but they co-exist with the new realities, or new favoured traits. Women today can both choose the so-called jerk or the man with more evolved advanced ideas, thoughts, skills, etc. Men are able to do the same (choose a woman who isn’t so curvy and pretty but who is more intellectual, for instance). The brutish jerk is a fading relic, but he still has a place and therefore has an effect as long as he still exists.
What personally disheartening for me is that many men feel that to be “a real man” is to be this way; it’s essentially men basing their lives around the approval of women. These guys know women like this, so this is what they do (although many do just revel in it anyway, as in, acting like a macho dick is just a bonus alongside the main goal getting women) . I think some of the best men who resist gender/ideological feminism, for instance, or certainly not macho jerks–and I know Glenn Sacks is married.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Hey Marauder -- I was pretty sure somebody was going to address roy. I understand your feeling of wanting to walk away. I decided not to acknowledge his position after exchanging a couple of posts with him (and him proclaiming himself a slave...).
Davina, I have a question mainly for you, or other women here.
The women ==> jerk model is an over-simplification. It seems to me that what women are attracted to is a man who is assertive, confident in himself and what he does, does not supplicate to (or worship...ugh) her. Unfortunately the 'jerk' fits into this category, but he is not the only type who fits. Imagine a Venn diagram -- jerks are a subset of confident and assertive; the fallacy is to take jerkness as a representative characteristic of the entire group.
What do you think?
(PS I reject the idea that someone expressed above that someone who cannot attract girls is a 'victim'. He has to accept reality and take action by changing his clearly failing mating strategy...)
March 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
George:
"(PS I reject the idea that someone expressed above that someone who cannot attract girls is a 'victim'. He has to accept reality and take action by changing his clearly failing mating strategy...)"
I don't agree with this statement. It implies that it is only the man who has to change.........and not the woman. Not all guys want to attract "just any girl." Some of us have standards of our own. I am not attracted to a female who is not attracted to the REAL ME.
I believe BOTH women and men should change their mating strategy........not just men. I believe that females should place less value on a man's success and males should place less value on a woman's appearance.
Despite male socialization telling me to "take it like a man" and shoulder things witout complaint, I am not threatened by the idea of a male being a victim once in while. Again, I agree with masculist Jack Kammer who states that people should find a happy balance between taking full responsibility for things and asking others for help during hard times.
I don't find the utility in changing the real me just to please a female. Relationships are about both people being happy.
Many females say they want a man "who knows what he wants." This is codespeak for lusting for the male success-object. Some men are confident, and others are not. Just because some guys are confident and assertive, this does not mean that it is NOT OKAY to be shy, introverted, and anxious. Some of us are naturally more anxious than others, but we all deserve love.
Am I victim? I don't really know. I am a victim in the sense that it is harder for guys like me to find a romantic partner. On the other hand, I am not a victim in the sense that I am a liberated male........I rejected the path of the chivalrous, disposable, and emotionless success-object. In that sense, I am not a victim.
MXY
March 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Fellows;
Don't be hard on Roy. I've been through my anger/hatred stage with women, and now I'm in what I call my "pragmatic" stage. I feel little or no anger towards them, I just recognize them for what they are- and it's usually pretty bad.
It is what it is.
With that said, you might ask if I feel that EVERY woman is necessarily completely rotten. I would have to say that no, all women are not rotten (yet), or whatever adjective you prefer. I do think, however, that feminism has corrupted the vast majority of western women to one degree or another, and it's not going to get any better any time soon. (meaning: in our lifetimes).I do think that the bad women generally get worse, and the so-called good women are gradually, or not so gradually, being seduced into the dark side. Women are generally followers, and the societal influences surrounding them that are arrayed against men and the traditional family are simply too overwhelming for them. Sadly, when given a choice of whether to follow good or evil, a woman will usually follow evil. Such is their history.
Even in the Christian churches, the feminist mentality has taken effect, and only rarely will you hear ANY Christian woman say that she believes in obeying her husband. This wasn't the case even twenty years ago. Feminism is like a tidal wave washing over society, and your only defense is to see it coming, and get to higher ground and stay out of the mess.
WE CAN'T WIN.
PERIOD.
The forces arrayed against us are simply too strong. We have the state, world leaders, religion, the feminist and lesbian movements, and weak, neutered married men standing in opposition to us. To make matters worse, almost all women subscribe to feminism to a certain extent. You simply can NOT find a woman who refuses to accept at least some feminism, and you can NOT find a woman that believes in obeying her husband as religions have taught down through history.
I'll word it differently, but stress my point again:
THE TRADITIONAL, OBEDIENT WOMAN IS A THING OF THE PAST.
She doesn't exist anymore. She's dead. Gone. Kaput.
Once you accept that, then might ask yourself : "What do I do now?"
Answer:
Nothing.
Live your life for yourself. You can NOT change women. Trust me on this. In the first place, with a woman, you are dealing with a person, who under the best of circumstances, is amoral. You know that little thing called a conscience, or what the Mormon's like to call a "still, small voice" that plagues you when you are about to do something you already know is wrong? Well, at least when it comes to men, women either don't have that feature, or they bypass it rather quickly. A woman is not going to avoid harming you by committing adultery, or by divorcing you just because she knows it's wrong. Her emotions will override her conscience EVERY TIME.
When dealing with a woman, it's like trying to play Monopoly with an opponent who can reach over into the bank whenever he wants and grab money. Or houses. Or deeds. You simply can't win when hard and fast ENFORCEABLE rules aren't in place. The only way to avoid total loss is to refuse to play the game in the first place under such circumstances.
The only real task those of us who are, dare I say enlightened with regards to women, can hope to perform is to warn the few men who are open to the truth, and who aren't slaves to their sexual passions. Unfortunately, few men qualify. Most men will spend their lives being used and abused by women. It is, I suspect, their fate.
So, in closing, understand why many men feel such intense anger and even hatred towards women. Frankly, women deserve it and much more. I caution men against strong negative emotions towards women not because women don't deserve the same bile they have been spewing towards us being thrust back in their faces, but because it lowers us down to their level.
Just walk away and live your life as you see fit.
Christopher
March 1st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I remember one time asking a girl the following question -- "You could pick practically any guy you want. Why don't you just go find a guy who thinks he's lucky to be with you? Who will be good to you because he's a nice, good hearted guy, who is pleased with his good fortune? Why don't you just find a nice guy, and have a relationship with him?
This is soooo simple . . . because the girls in question are jerks.
b
March 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
roy Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
(Tony S) -- "...the best survival-adaption qualities."
I guess your theory would make Donald Trump a poor prospect as a catch?
He's clearly no "brute."
Ever notice that the guys with all the money are not that "big"?
While I appreciate your understanding of evolutionary psychology, it is the size of the WALLET that matters now.
Have you read about the Industrial Revolution?
The Information Age?
"The guys that fit these qualities are the brutes and not the wimps."
Sorry. The wimps not only won, they paid off the brutes to be Sunday amusements on the big plasma TV!
= = =
Roy, sorry man I have to disagree with you here . . .
The poop will hit the fan again some day, probably sooner than we all think. Donald Trump and is money will mean nothing. Katrina gave us a small demonstrated of this for us. If Donald were there he would probably have died. Survival skills will one day separate the boys from the men again. Although I enjoy the technology while it is here, most people are utterly lost and dead with out it. Only thorough the kindness of others and some pure dumb luck do people survive moderate to major natural and man-made disasters. This I have seen and experienced first hand. Sad but true I will do what I can in that situation to help others but when it comes down to me and my family and the person in tow is slowing us down . . .I will cut the rope.
b
March 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I don't buy this at all. OK, so I'm not exactly, nor ever was, considered a great "catch" by the majority of men, but I'm old enough now (meaning fading looks) to admit that I was OK looking when I was young, except I just couldn't see that way back then.
I had no interest in the bad boys. None. Zero. No interest in "jerks". No interest in the show-offs. No interest in braggarts. Nor did most of my friends and if they were girls of that sort (meaning rather shallow and not-so-bright ones who would eschew a nice guy in favor of the local thug), they weren't anyone with whom I would want to hang or emulate. My twin sister, OTOH, LOVED the jerks. (She recently mused aloud to my daughter, "Why did your mom always get the nice, intelligent men?" My daughter snapped back, "Because mommy didn't go to bars and head straight for the best looking guy in the place and have sex with him that night."
I didn't want to be treated badly; I wanted to be treated well and to have someone who appreciated being treated well in return. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask....
Of course some are better at hiding what jerks they are - and I mean women as well as men. And some of us get more discerning with age. For all my careful associations in youth, I married two jerks anyway, both of whom seemed OK, but were real a$$es. And I wasn't so nice myself at times, either.
I have finally gotten it right. I suppose it just takes some of us longer than others.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Don't be hard on Roy.
-----------------
You can't be too hard on Roy; from what I've seen he enjoys the challenge.
And it's all just words on a screen, right Roy?
(sorry; couldn't resist)
March 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
RoseMarie;
Rather contradictory, eh? I realize this is one of the joys of being female, but come now.
You said you had:
"No interest in jerks"
Followed by:
"I married two jerks anyway."
Can you begin to understand why it is so pointless trying to reason with women? Not only is it all but impossible to attempt to be rational with the irrational, it isn't worth the time. As the saying goes, "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It only annoys the pig".
(shaking head in disbelief)
Christopher
March 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Size of the wallet? Not for me and it never was. I am a sucker for brains. The more intelligent, the better. But the intelligence means little if there is not a good heart as well. I may notice the gorgeous man first, but the one who always blew me away, regardless of looks, was the smart one with the genuine smile who was kind to others. And I know other women here feel the same way.
There was a man I knew once - he was going to be a complete success and I knew it. I predicted great things for him - he has achieved them and more. He was drop dead gorgeous as well, but there was one thing about him I could not tolerate - he was cut throat with no regard whom he had to hurt to get where he wanted to go.
Funny how he wasn't so good looking after I noticed that.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
"Sadly, when given a choice of whether to follow good or evil, a woman will usually follow evil. Such is their history."
I gotta pull a callum here.
Man, what the hell are you talking about?
You're imputing a lot of stuff to women here that has no basis in reality. Frankly, and under Christian doctrine, your above statement should be fairly applied to all people, men and women both.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Christopher,
Perhaps I didn't word that very well.
I couldn't tell that these guys were jerks because I was not discerning enough. They seemed all right, but in the end, they were pretty horrible.
Does that make sense?
March 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
RoseMarie;
I appreciate your attempt to clarify, but think about what I'm saying. Women ARE naturally attracted to jerks, especially in their youth. Granted, many women wise up when they are past their expiration date, but by then the damage is done, and it's probably too late. Virtually all young women who are prime candidates for marriage and child-bearing gravitate towards the jerks that will treat them horribly, assault them, emotionally abuse them, abandon them and infect them with Herpes. It's just a fact.
I can see that you now see the folly of marrying a jerk. But you have now divorced two men. You're on your THIRD marriage after failing the first two. You merely prove what I'm saying.
Christopher
March 1st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Rosemarie Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Size of the wallet? Not for me and it never was.
= = =
BUT she married two rich guy anyway
b
March 1st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
RoseMarie;
As to your wallet statement, I must give a qualified disagreement. There may be a few women who aren't brazen golddiggers (yet), but women virtually always judge a man by his profession first, and his income second. Character traits like integrity and morality are "third date" questions at best. If a man makes enough money, and has a high status position, items like the afore-mentioned morality and integrity are shunted to the side to be addressed after the marriage. Women will almost invariably marry the worst scoundrel imaginable IF he is rich and powerful enough.
The value a woman places on access to her body is ALWAYS expressed in monetary terms.
Christopher
March 1st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Boys;
Please understand a woman will almost always protest loudly that SHE would never do this, that or the other thing that OTHER women will do, then proceed to do it anyway. It's as if women have completely taken leave of their sanity, and just down see what they are doing.
Oy.
Christopher
March 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Rosemarie Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I am a sucker for brains. The more intelligent, the better.
but the one who always blew me away, regardless of looks, was the smart one with the genuine smile who was kind to others. And I know other women here feel the same way.
= = =
Rosemarie, then you MUST be head ofre heals in love with me. I am flattered.
b
March 1st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Uh - they divorced me. I don't believe in these capricious divorces. I have stated this before and I can guarantee you you will find no inconsistencies in my posts because I do not lie. The only thing I DO do is call the man with whom I am living my husband because it's just so much easier than explaining, and I hate the term "SO". And when I've written "partner", everyone seems to think it's a woman.
And no, Bernie, NEITHER were rich - both were poor and ALL OF US had nothing. One was an Englishman who came to the US with nothing - and no, I did not come out of either marriage with anything, either.
BUT I don't see why I'm explaining any of this to persons who believe that every thing a woman posts is a lie.
To hell with it - I'm going shopping for shoes.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Rosemarie Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
To hell with it - I'm going shopping for shoes.
= = =
No doubt with the money you claim that you did not receive from them.
b
BTW I am in a playful mood and am just funnin' ya
Ask anyone here I do like to inject jocularity just a little
b
March 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Hey MXY,
Good points. I definitely agree with some of the sentiments you are expressing. Perhaps what I meant wasn't expressed well enough.
I am categorically not saying 'men have to change, women do not.'
I agree that for a healthier society, one of the things that has to come about is as you state -- men have to alter their standards of beauty, and women their standards of success. Because what these standards do is to distract from the real goal of finding a partner who is the best for you. That is the ideal standard.
Given the options, I don't think there's a guy out there who wants to attract 'just any girl'.
My comment was more directed at the individual condition rather than the social condition. It is unhealthy to look at a situation, throw up one's hands and say "I am a helpless victim!". To any individual who says "I am not happy with the way things are going", there is only one answer to be given: "then you have to change something". This could of course be asking somebody for their help. But you can't wait for things to happen for you.
This could also involve being part of a movement to change society. But there is a difference between wanting a social trend to change because it is unhealthy, and wanting it to change because it would benefit you. For example, one cannot begrudge women (or men) all their standards.
I also hate the 'take it like a man' phrase. It is ridiculous! What it says is -- "even though you are unhappy with something, you should not do anything about it". That is clearly stupid advice! It makes men very stressed dealing with social pressure like this.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
But my credit card cannot be overdrawn . . . I do not have enough shoes yet! (-;
b
March 1st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Jesus, Bernie, I expected better out of you. Another doomsday philosopher I swear to god I've had it with this movement. The next frontier is the stars, Bern old boy. We'll be worse than ALIENS. Nothing is going to happen here on earth, except the grass will grow. Starvation? Genocide? Not a problem for us, as we've so recently shown. I'd nuke the place from orbit, just to be safe.
Just look at you and Christopher viciously attacking one of the few female men's rights advocates on this board Good job guys. I'm so proud of you both.
Christopher is a sexist who cloaks his bigotry in religion. What the hell, Bernie, you riding with this guy? I personally crap better Christians than Christopher.
It's exactly this that hamstrings the men's movement .
March 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
This is "Leykis 101"
Most women get turned on by the alpha. The alpha is the alpha because he is confident enough to be dismissive of catering to women. Thus, he is labeled a "jerk." Women with low self-esteem are the most susceptible to the "jerk's" allure. Paradoxically, the more beautiful the woman, the more likely that she will be, or can be made to feel, insecure. Thus, one of the hallmarks of the "jerk's" success is his ability to undermine a woman's self-esteem -- again, by NOT being attentive to HER needs.
In the feminists' new societal order, the jerk is truly in "hog-heaven." Most (young, delightfully foolish) women will stop getting wet at the prospect of being with a "bad boy" when the leopard changes its proverbial spots.
All's fair in love and war .... And, these days, who can tell the difference?
March 1st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Good points George, and thanks for clarification.
MXY
March 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
No George you are wrong again. No one should change their standards. Although it may look bad at first, the current situation gives a clear who-is-who of human crap in the dating world. All a careful person has to do is look. If it walks like a duck, its probably a duck. now teaching the duck to walk like a goose does not make it a goose.
to say "men have to alter" ... means pretend that you are not what you are. There is no possible way a person can go against ingrained personality and beliefs established on a rationale. I hope no one "alters" themselves, cause then they will fool 2 people - the person who fell for the facade, and themselves - and then divorce a few years later when the wrapping tape peels off.
This even means that the most of the geeks and nerds (who seem to be almost a 100% socially dislocated males), will never reproduce and hence society will loose a lot of good genes down the drain (grave in this case). So be it. If society is not designed for them. They might as well die with their good qualities.
"Idiocracy" anyone?
March 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Barsin;
For the record, I am NOT A CHRISTIAN. I was born Catholic, raised Mormon, and spent many years as a fundamentalist Baptist. I have rejected all of these religions, and now consider myself a Deist. I may very well become an atheist, as my belief in a God is waning. I have studied our monotheistic religions for many years, and have found them all devoid of so-called exclusive truth.
As to being a "sexist"; you'd better believe it. Any man who is otherwise cuts his own throat.
As to a woman being a "men's rights advocate"- surely you must be kidding. There just ain't no such Beasty. Any woman who claims to sympathize with our plight does so only because she has been personally inconvenienced by another female somehow harming a male in her own sphere. Women do NOT naturally sympathize with men. Nor do they like us.
As to your bad manners, I' ll let your own words speak for themselves. You seem to have little self-restraint, so I won't waste my time trying to illuminate you on the subject of good manners.
Christopher
March 1st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Ahhh, the perennial subtopic, some say the raison d'etre of the men's movement. Why do girls like the bad boys? Or, in other words, "Why can't I get a date?".
This is not a derogatory post to this position by the way, although it may seem so.....
This is the source of the accusations of "whiny" "can't get laid" etc... And to some degree, those accusations are 100% correct. Nearly every man alive has to either find a way to make this happen, or fail to procreate. This is, of course, nothing new at all...DNA evidence shows only about 40% of males reproduced historically. I doubt the number is that low now....and that's a hint.
This is one area where feminism has most definitely helped men (as a group) out. The behaviour so loathed by some has led to men that ordinarily would have a hard time attracting a (however temporary) mate, actually doing so with relative ease.
This is also one area where MRA's in general need to take personal responsibility, and LEARN HOW TO DO IT. I know it sounds like work, but that's just because it is... Sitting around whining that women don't like "nice guys" is pathetic in every sense of the word, especially given the average intelligence level in this group. Women don't like "jerks", they like exciting, and fun, and unpredictable, and passionate, and thrilling. Ask the local "rig pig" (if you live near the oil patch) how many women want to go 4x4'ing with them, or dirtbiking... How about women watching sports? They like active men, doing something that is at least interesting to watch, but preferably interesting to DO with them. The Jerks, the Gang members, the rock stars, the lawyers (poke poke), they all have something in common. They're INTERESTING.
Nice guys all too often try to "buy" women's attention. It's manipulative behaviour, and when women scoff at it, they are 100% justified in doing so. Don't think you're interesting enough on your own? Well, I suggest you find out for yourself. Failing that, you could take steps to make yourself interesting....take up skydiving for instance, or archery...whatever. At least your time will be more fun, even if the chicks don't swarm you because of it. The phrase "Plenty of fish in the sea" applies, don't get too emotionally invested in the outcome of initial contact.....no one likes desperate people.
And the reason for THAT is the same as what women look for in a man. Status. Not money, status. How jealous would her friends be of you? Say you've got a group of women, one of which the "jerk" wants. The "jerk" flirts* with all of them, making as many of the group attracted to him as possible. It doesn't matter that he wasn't much to begin with, because if he can generate interest in one, the rest will follow in a "feedback loop" of sorts. Basically: "I didn't feel anything for this guy at first, but Celeste seems to like him, what is it about him she likes?" She thinks more on it, and flirts harder just in case she really does want this guy after all (can't have Celeste hogging him you know). The others see this and adjust behaviour accordingly.
The higher the status of the man (i.e. the larger the group of women vying for his attention), the more attractive the woman who becomes interested. If an unattractive woman rejects you in sight of a more attractive woman, you can forget ever getting her attention again - especially if it looks like you actually care about the rejection.
I remember what I said to a buddy once, wayyy back when this topic was covered from the feminists POV (Men objectify, they should love for what's inside...blah blah blah.). Quoth Dan:
"I'm not gonna change what attracts me to a woman just so some corduroy wearing b(word) in Toronto can feel better about her ugly, fat @$$."
The same holds true today - if I don't find a woman physically appealing, no amount of "nice" will make up for it. Why would you expect women to be any different?
Learn the skill, decide what you want, go get it, stop complaining.
Listen to Tom Leykis, that'll help.
* Just think treat her like your little sister....good natured teasing, always with a smile.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Never forget....men do the selecting, women only have veto power.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
No George you are wrong again.
* cries * :'(
March 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Christopher, I can see why you think that way.
But I sure hope you are wrong.
As for Barsin ... Could you please set aside your chivalry and the shaming tactics inherited from the feminists? If you do, you will see that what he says does make some sense of where he is coming from (although he is indulging in a borderline personal attack).
His argument is you cannot keep saying "I never eat cats, except that I did eat two last year. Reason - because they tasted like chicken". I don't see how he is wrong, although people do make mistakes sometimes. But, I think we are talking about an inclination to make these mistakes.. aren't we?
March 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Dan M -- really great post.
A total guru and mentor to me once said: the most attractive thing is a healthy mind.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Dan M:
"This is also one area where MRA's in general need to take personal responsibility, and LEARN HOW TO DO IT. I know it sounds like work, but that's just because it is... Sitting around whining that women don't like "nice guys" is pathetic"
I dont believe it is pathetic at all. In fact, according to phenomenology (i.e., what is "pathetic" is in the eyes of the beholder). I don't decry the fact that I am not getting laid per se. I decry the fact that my natural disposition, who I am as a person, is not as appealing to most women as the traits that other males naturally posess and are comfortable with. Confidence and ambition are natural and comfortable traits to many guys, but some of us are artistic, introverted, shy, nerdy, gothy, sensitive, and anxious. In our world, it is kinda sad that females pass us by. But what is even sadder than that is changing who we are JUST TO PLEASE A FEMALE.
Even the examples (such as taking up skydiving) are dangerous activities that reinforce male disposability. And the idea of putting oneself in danger just to please a female is what seems pathetic to me.
As a masculist, I challenge traditional gender role expecations like: "stop whining," "act like a male," or "take responsibility." This kind of social conditioning leads to the disposable and chivalrous male role of chump-hood. Research even shows that male-male sexual competition has been linked to the male's shorter life span.
I believe males should do what makes them happy for a change..........not formulate their lives on the basis of what females want. If a man wants to sky dive or do archery because he finds these activities, that is fine.
As a liberated male............I may not get laid, but I have my dignity. I am neither a whiner or a chump. I am somewhere in between of these two extremities, and I think that is a healthy and realistic place to be.
MXY
March 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
MXY said it best.
What I would add is that whatever the basis of male-male sexual competition should be out in the open so we don't raise a future generation of males to think they have to be "nice guys" and subsequently bred out of existence.
Imagine raising a son teaching him how to be the biggest jerk. Just because that is the only way he will win in this competition for breeding and genetic existence. In DanM's words to fit into the 40% of men that reproduce.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
MXY,
I'm not entirely clear on this concept of 'changing who we are'.
For example if I said -- "I'm a guy who sits inside all day, that's who I am, I decry the fact that this is not appealing to women", or "I weigh 400 pounds, women should be attracted to that", or "I know I have no social skills and cannot keep a conversation going, but I decry that this is not appealing to women" others might say - that's nuts. So I would be grateful if you could explain the concept to me. (I know it's hard to judge someone's tone on the internet, so to clarify, I am definitely with you on a lot of things and this is a genuine question because I don't get it.)
Also, I don't agree that it's "just to please a female". I think what Dan M is advocating is working on ourselves for the sake of our *own* happinesses. If you 'work on yourself' does that mean 'changing who you are', and is that a bad thing?
I agree that phrases such as 'stop whining', 'act like a male' are dammaging to us. 'Take responsibility' is a phrase that's also used to tell men what to do, but in this case I think Dan M is saying "each individual should take charge of their life, instead of waiting for things to happen to them" -- correct me if I'm wrong (again -.- !) Dan.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
PS 'working on yourself' simply means working to become more healthy and balanced.
Also, is there shame involved in admitting that a sexual relationship is very fulfilling?
March 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Davina said "Good ol' Roy will probably be remembered in like fashion as radical feminists Valerie Solanas, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin and that MacKinnon woman."
This is a bit harsh Davina. I have had some disagreements with Roy, but I would never compare him to the likes of Dworkin.
I tend to agree with Roy in that it is hard finding women who you can engage with on a more intellectual level. Women tend to be more pedestrian and limited.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
George said:
"I'm not entirely clear on this concept of 'changing who we are'.
For example if I said -- "I'm a guy who sits inside all day, that's who I am, I decry the fact that this is not appealing to women", or "I weigh 400 pounds, women should be attracted to that", or "I know I have no social skills and cannot keep a conversation going, but I decry that this is not appealing to women" others might say - that's nuts. So I would be grateful if you could explain the concept to me. (I know it's hard to judge someone's tone on the internet, so to clarify, I am definitely with you on a lot of things and this is a genuine question because I don't get it.)"
No problem george. I will try my best. As a psychology student, I may use some psycho-babble.
In psychology, mcrae and costa have studied the OCEAN model of personality. Each of the 5 personality variables in this paradigm operates on a continuum. According to Mcrae and Costa, these personality traits are fixed at a certain age, and cannot be changed (hence our natural and comfortable dispositions that make us unique). The "E" in OCEAN represents "extraversion" vs. "introversion," the "N" represents "neuroticism," the "A" represents "agreeableness," and one of the letters represents "impulsivity". I think the C stands for "conscientious." It has been a while since i studied these, so I hope I got them right!!
Some females find some of these traits more sexually appealing than others. I believe that females tend to gravitate towards males who are extraverted, non-anxious, self-determined (not timid or agreeable), conscientious, and impulsive. These variable constructs seem to resonate with a "manly" vs. "unmanly" tone..........much like the BEM Sex Role Inventory that delineates 20 feminine traits vs. the 20 masculine traits.
If I were a female I would have already accomplished my courtship display (since I am skinny and underweight). However, as a male, this is not good enough. I am expected to provide, protect, and perform. It is the EXPECATION TO BE A SUCCESS OBJECT that bothers me, not the goal in and of itself. I am not "lazy" or anything...........I perform music, I write prose/poetry, act, and I am getting my masters degree. But these are things that I value and want to do. I don't even like to tell females about these things because I would rather be judged by my personality than what I accomplish.
Going back to the OCEAN model of personality, I tend to be introverted, anxious, and overly-agreeable (timid). These traits are not very flattering to females, and are sometimes construed as weakness. But it is who I am, and I am okay with that. But it is a bit depressing that who I am as a person is considered less-than-appealing to a female. But again, it is not that I don't get laid.......it is that I choose not to get laid by a person I am not attracted to anyway.
Many females resent being judged on their looks. I similarly resent being judged on the basis of my status or success. I feel I have done my part, and I have lowered my beauty standards (I have even dated an overweight female before). In fact, I have no insecurities with females who are taller or wealthier than me either. I am even attracted to the idea.
I do believe that the emotion of sadness.........in and of itself implies a certain modicum of victimhood. The trouble is that males are conditioned to avoid sadness and vulnerability. Anger is the acceptable substitute for these "girly" emotions. Sadness is a female privilege. But I believe that males, like females, have a right to sadness and vulnerability. It doesn't make us wimps or whiners or victims. It makes us human.
MXY
March 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Getting in touch with your inner jerk
George said: "The women ==> jerk model is an over-simplification. It seems to me that what women are attracted to is a man who is assertive, confident in himself and what he does, does not supplicate to (or worship...ugh) her. Unfortunately the 'jerk' fits into this category, but he is not the only type who fits. Imagine a Venn diagram -- jerks are a subset of confident and assertive; the fallacy is to take jerkness as a representative characteristic of the entire group."
I've heard this before, usually from women and apologetic men, and it's a big fantasy like the knight in shining armor that loves selfish women "just as they are." It's not true! This is because many women are "jerks" themselves (the term is "bitch") even if they don't appear to be on the surface. Our culture encourages women to view themselves as victims of men, or entitled princesses, or to pursue a valuable career for her own pleasure. (How many young women are encouraged to work hard to support a two parent family? That's MAD MONEY folks!) Women who are passive are usually passive aggressive and that's why "jerks" fit their bill.
Even if a man is truly assertive and confident but not jerkish, relationships require some degree of vulnerability. Eventually, he'll show a crack and she'll tear it open and spit his heart out. And then... he's not an invulnerable, untouched man anymore. All a man has to be is self-confident, but sensitive many women say. Pity that such men don't exist in the real world. Or if they do, they're not going to be climbing up their Rapunzel tower...
Jerks bang hot chicks one after another because they are emotionally detached at some level, almost like a sociopath, from these women allowing them to put on that act and not get hammered by the nasty tests and games such women continually play to get beneath their skin.
Someday... over the rainbow...
Davina wrote: "Hopefully in the near future, when men and women are standing on genuinely equal footing ..."
Yeah, and we'll be flying around on pigs and communism will work and everyone will be equal but at the same time able to achieve their personal best.
What's wrong with that picture? Oh, except for being totally contradictory and paradoxical, nothing. Other than women showing a tendency to either marry up or remain single and shunning equality at every turn, it's perfectly logical that society will evolve in the other direction.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Re: Masculist and George.
The point about whether or not women don't like nice guys blah blah blah, is that when women's bad choices lead to worse outcomes for them invariably it is men who get blamed. It is up to women what men they choose to get involved with. But it is not fair for women to blame men collectively for women's poor choices in men. I suspect on some level women deliberately choose bastards in order to confim their prejudice that men are bastards. Many people actually prefer to have their prejudices confirmed than to be happy.
As far as whining about not getting laid, sure no-one has an automatic right to sex any more than anyone has a right to a luxury car, a fur coat, and a mansion. You have to work at some things, and hope luck falls your way. But the problem is that the rules regarding sex are increasingly stacked against men now. Look at rape laws that assume women don't lie, sexual harassment, paternity fraud etc. It is mainly men who have more confidence and resources who are best able to navigate the prickly terrain in order to get the prize. The point is that no-one should complain that they can't always get what they want in life. But you should complain if the rules of the game are being rigged against you.
The one area where I think men should learn to 'play the game' is that, if it is okay for women to use sex to manipulate men it should be equally acceptable for men to manipulate women in order to get sex. If that means adopting behaviours every once in a while that will get you laid, and then reverting to your old reserved self then that is what you have to do. Although not if it involves putting yourself in danger or obviously having to make too many sacrifices.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Re: above.
I think Masculist makes a good point about maintaining your dignity. If men are too willing to do anything to please women in order to get laid, you can end up like a performing seal doing whatever tricks are necessary to get the prize. When you learn to control the sexual impulse, women lose much of their power over you. I am not suggesting complete abstinence. I am simply suggesting that you should avoid sex if the price is too high, or a woman is trying to manipulate you. Instead, only have sex on terms that are more favourable to you.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Great points nick. It is indeed the double standards that are the most relevant.
Masculist XY
March 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
PK, that's interesting, but I don't think you're right.
MXY, I'm really interested in psychology. I've read about the OCEAN model before. In fact have you mentioned it before on these boards? In these matters I tend to go with evolutionary psychology and economic theory. (I tend to think very logically about positions, as opposed to emotionally -- I studied maths at university.) I think one has to find the best strategy for oneself.
I suppose we'll have to disagree on a few things, but like I said I agree with you on a lot. I do think treating men as a success object is wrong. Although I am still driven to be successful in anything I do.
I like you would not change myself for a girl, but I would change myself for myself. For example if I liked a certain type of music, say classical, and a girl told me it was lame, of course I'd be like "whatever". But if I were shy, and I had difficulty interacting with people, I would work on that to help myself with that. I would regard working on myself to become more healthy and balanced (especially mentally -- but this goes hand in hand with physically). So of course I do subscribe to some of your ideas in this area, but you take the idea slightly further than me. Like I said earlier, I do actually believe that the most attractive thing is a healthy mind. I also think it's really hard to be physically unattractive if you have a healthy mind.
Further, I think we have to separate the idea of a value judgement with an attraction judgement. For example there might be a lady I judged as a great person or who had great ideas, but I wasn't attracted to her (like maybe she was 80 or something).
By the way, I like your sentiments about sadness. I read an article somewhere (probably the [London] Times) about how our attitudes to crying are changing, and it is becoming more acceptable for both sexes to cry out of sadness or out of some other selfless idea, but any tear in self pity are becoming less acceptable. I think this is a better way of looking at this expression of emotion!
Thanks for sharing. :)
George
March 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Thanks for reply george. You have given me some things to think about.
I am reminded of Victor Frankl. He was the concentration camp survivor who wrote about how you can't change all situations, but you can always change your perceptions of situations. He was an existential therapist I believe. Interesting stuff. This is also related to "phenomenology" or how people act in accordance with how they perceive meaning in the world.
I don't recall bringing up the ocean model on here before. But I have mentioned evolutionary theory from time to time (david buss, donald symons, etc). In fact, david buss did the massive study documenting how females essentially judge males on their status, ambition, earning capacity, and other masculine strivings while males evaluate females on beauty.
MXY
March 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Nick S, great post. MXY and I were really having a discussion about what strategies to use in life, and in attraction (I certainly do not advocate "doing any tricks necessary", and I for sure don't think of sex as a 'prize'). But you have brought us back to more tangible issues, like double standards and i definitely agree with a lot you say. Especially about those tactics of blaming men for women's bad choices, and the blurry McCarthyist rape laws. This is the theme I see in a lot of society, and it harms both men and women -- society says:
"Men you have %100 responsibility, if you do anything bad you are evil. Women you have %0 responsibility, you are a complete victim and not in controll of your own actions"
Don't you agree that this is what we see a lot and it's just stupid?
I recently listened to a download of a US radio show (14th Jan edition), it was Dennis Prager or something, and he was interviewing the guy who wrote that Mars, Venus book, John Gray. Now Gray actually says at one point that he thinks men appreciate women more than women appreciate men, but he was almost scared to say it, even though that's what he believed.
Prager took calls about this, and it was so poignant, you guys should seriously check it out. Best thing i've heard in a while. There were actually women calling in in tears saying how they only recently realised how little they had appreciated their husband, who did so much work and always showed them love, while all they did was nag and criticize.
I agree with you Nick, the legal and social deck is stacked. As well as the laws, society loves to believe the negative stereotypes about men, that they're all jerks like you say, while we pretend women are paragons of virtue.
I cannot think of one positive stereotype our time holds about men, and it makes me so sad. What is this doing to men when no matter what they do, society is derisive, negative about them, and drags them down?
March 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
# George Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Also, I don't agree that it's "just to please a female". I think what Dan M is advocating is working on ourselves for the sake of our *own* happinesses. If you 'work on yourself' does that mean 'changing who you are', and is that a bad thing?
I agree that phrases such as 'stop whining', 'act like a male' are dammaging to us. 'Take responsibility' is a phrase that's also used to tell men what to do, but in this case I think Dan M is saying "each individual should take charge of their life, instead of waiting for things to happen to them" -- correct me if I'm wrong (again -.- !) Dan.
______________________________________________________________________________
Nope, pretty much nailed it on the head there. Look, I'm not trying to get anyone choked here with this, but seriously...
Ok, I'll personalize this, because why not?
I'll be blunt. I'm a smart guy (so the IQ people tell me, debate the validity if you wish), fairly well read, although the "classics" bore the hell out of me. I'm a photographer by trade, and artist by temperament. I've been told repeatedly by several women...this week....that I'm good looking. And I tell you this why?
Well, because until about 3 years ago I thought I was completely "untouchable". I always lost out to the jock or the "head" in the room, never got a girlfriend. In fact, my first date was at the age of 19. I was painfully shy, and immersed myself in books and art to avoid contact with women, who mystified me and scared the hell out of me at the same time.
The curious thing is, the more I told myself I was undesirable, the more I believed it. By the time I was 19, I was CONVINCED it was so.....and remained convinced through the next 15 or so women who ASKED ME OUT because they couldn't get me to ask them. I took the initiative for the first time at the age of 31.
A friend of mine took me aside a while back, and pointed out some things to me, things which should have been obvious. I had TRAINED myself to think I was unattractive, and therefore WAS unattractive most of the time. This friend advised me that acting this certain way won't work, but acting this other way will. This friend also told me which aspects of my personality are the most off putting. I began to work on those aspects of myself that I agreed with my friend's assessment on, and noticed I felt better about myself. I didn't focus on women, or "getting their approval" at ALL. In fact, that's counter productive.
I decided what I wanted, I went out to look for it, and found more of it than I expected. Once you realize that there's at LEAST a dozen women just as good as the one in front of you, and they put their pants on one leg at a time just like you do.....well, then you're cooking with gas. I'd say it's not about approval, except it is.... Whether or not You approve of Her. I'm not talking sit on the throne and dispense judgement, I mean you ask yourself "Is this woman interesting enough to spend time with?" and answer "yes". Seriously evaluate every woman you have interest in, better yet subtly (SUBTLY) let her know you're doing so....you'll find your success rate goes up. Unfortunately I haven't found a way to detect who will destroy you in court for fun, and who won't.....so I keep it light and physical. That's the way it is.
I could be making this all up, I could be a hunchback who never left his basement, or not. But so far I haven't seen a female poster disagree substantially with this line of thought.
So you don't want to change? Fine, don't. Especially if you're of the mindset that you don't care if there's a woman out there for you. Or you could do what millions of people do every day - accentuate the positive, as the song goes. maximize your own personal "good" character traits, minimize your own personal "bad" character traits, and go where your heart desires. Just know that certain personality types get laid more often than others, just like hot little blondes get more action than tall fat brunettes. It's uncomfortable for some to hear, but it's life, and deal with it. I anger people fairly regularly with what I say, and I accept the ramifications of that behaviour....but don't think for a minute being "abrasive" gets in the way of relations.
Does this sound like "manipulation" to you? How about if I ask a girl out, and then spend obviously HUGE amounts of money on her to "show her how much I like her" (look at all this cash I spent on you...you HAVE to put out now....)?
March 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
(oops that's 14th feb, valentines day)
March 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
(Marauder) -- "You're not helpful."
I have never represented myself as remotely helpful.
I prefer to be effective.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Oh well, I think I've stated this before - I've spent too much time being a decent guy, only to listen to women piss and moan about the jerk that she's hooked up with.
By decent guy, I mean someone who's ethical and trustworthy on my own terms. I've got friends that I've had for decades, and we can call one another at an ungodly hour for help. I don't know any women who can say the same. I'm an honorable man because it matters to me, not because I think it will help get me laid, or land me a decent relationship.
I do have to admit - the jerks look like they are having fun. I suppose that's the heart of it. Unfortunately, the bill comes due at some point. The question is who gets stuck with it. With the jerks, it's rarely them.
My other gripe is dealing with the hypersensitivity if I'm the jerk's successor. I don't mind discussing whatever dumbass did that hurt her feelings, but I DO mind having to severely limit ordinary behavior to tip-toe around someone's throbbing oversensitivity.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times..stay away from people whom you don't like.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
And please notice that most of the women came out to defend me.
That is the female version of Chivalry. I do not know what to call it. (Pity?)
Rosemarie -- "Don't be hard on Roy."
This is really interesting!
Women who have no idea who I am or where I live are defending an imaginary personality on a screen!
We all have to make a commitment to explore this further.
It is not personal in any way.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Women do indeed love bad boys. I remember when I was in middle school, I adored this woman. We loved the same things: poetry and music. We could talk about anything and everything together. (I'll call her "K.")
K would come to me from time to time, crying about how her boyfriend hit her. However, no matter what I did, I could not get her to dump the jerk. When she eventually did, she would get another control freek for a boyfriend and come whining to me again. It was sickening.
Then, I got the idea that I could be her boyfriend. My passion and gentle ways would make her happy, right? No way! She made it clear to me that I was to be her friend and nothing else. Can you guess what happened after that. She was abused by another bad boy.
I have no sympathy for women who choose those men. Anyway, I know that some 35 year old woman is going to attempt to marry me some day. I won't have any of it. Especially if K goes for it.
MXY, I know exactly what you mean. I am a musician who adores classical music. Shyness is not a problem with me, but I do apollogize too much. On top of that, I'm totally blind, and am not naturally social.
I don't have the heart to treat women like they wish to be treated, it seems. I am too nice. Therefore, I believe that women continually place me beneath them. I have come to grips with this, and congratulate myself on not having to deal with such women. After all, dating women who feel I am beneath them has proved daunting and worthless before.
Roy and christopher are certainly not politically correct in their observations of women, but they are usually correct. No one wants to believe what they say. however, I can't refute their arguments. I will leave that to those persons that are enlightened.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
In a previous thread, Norman L. wrote:
"Every one on this board should read Steve Moxon's new book, "The Woman Racket". It uses a biological/evolutionary approach to explain why most men not only are, but must be, members of an oppressed class. The book also shows how this fact relates to all the feminist myths and fallacies, like DV, the workplace, false accusations of rape, etc.
Don't make the mistake of blowing off Moxon as "another one of those determinists", and therefore not reading the book.
Sorry to change the subject..."
I think Norman is right, and I will go to Amazon web site and buy the book right away!!
Sorry to change the subject.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 am
I saw the movie 'the Jerk'. Frankly I thought the circus performer girlfriend was more of a jerk that he was.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 am
George Says:
"The women ==> jerk model is an over-simplification. It seems to me that what women are attracted to is a man who is assertive, confident in himself and what he does, does not supplicate to (or worship...ugh) her. Unfortunately the 'jerk' fits into this category, but he is not the only type who fits. Imagine a Venn diagram -- jerks are a subset of confident and assertive; the fallacy is to take jerkness as a representative characteristic of the entire group."
George, you make an interesting point and I'll try to articulate why. Assertiveness, confidence, no nonsense are traits anyone can possess but it may not be as attractive on everyone else as it is on the jerk. Here's why: the common denominator I see here is looks, as in physical appearance (not how you dress, walk, talk etc). The jerk scores high points with women for the same reasons the lovely heavy-chested bimbo scores high with men: they are great to look at and physically a price to have on your arm (more than likely everyone else will be struck by their comeliness).
For example the typical characteristics of a jerk (suave, arrogance disguised as confidence, flirtatious etc) would never benefit an ugly man. In like fashion, a well-endowed ugly girl will probably only attract male attention if she's all that's available or if she's with people who are uglier than her. If she's at a party with flat-chested but gorgeous women she'll have very slim chances of gaining exclusive male attention for herself, even with men who are normally attracted to large breasts. If there are well-endowed gorgeous women in the room, she becomes invisible. Literally. Moreover, let's say our girl does get some guys to pay attention to her, all the typical traits displayed by the jerk are amplified and are not always contrued as positive. She might get labelled as a bitch, a hussy etc. Pretty girl will probably get away with being charming, witty, the like...even though she behaved in the exact same way as the ugly girl.
Back to the ugly man, the same applies. He could be Rico Suave incarnate ... if he doesn't have the looks to go with it, he will NOT get the flock of besotted female admirers who'd gladly and willingly hop into his bed and do him to his heart's content. And like our girl above, if he's not careful, his display of the exact same traits that are displayed by the jerk will be met with cringled noses, if not nasty comments. Though, I must admit what he's likely to get enough of is "friends" (who'll later come to him with their man problems) to last him about 50 lifetimes. Our girl above might not be so lucky since men don't seem to embrace the "can we be friends?" paradigm women do.
So in summary, like women's appeal to men, jerk men are attractive to a lot of women not necessarily because they have good one-liners, and or that proverbial tinkle in their eye (as we've established those are traits even the most average man can and do possess). They're able to attract women in droves because of their stunning physical appearance. Men will almost always go for the most attractive girl in the room even when she's as dumb as a tree stump.
The big difference I've observed though is this: the average guy may not think of himself as the one to wise-up the dumb girl. If his only interest is getting into her pants, he'll probably do just that and be on his way. He couldn't care less about her dumbness, that's her problem. Up to this point, I think women and men don't display much difference.
But lets say he does like her beyond the sack, let's say he really likes her and ends up marrying her. He'll have no delusions about what she is and isn't, at least not when it comes to her dumbness. He knows she's dumb, maybe she'll change, maybe she won't. Either way, provided that he's marrying her for love and not some other motive, he'll be satisfied with the dumb girl because that's probably what made him fall in love with her in the first place. If it isn't, her dumbness is either not of great importance to him or he can tolerate it. He'd not knowingly marry the dumb girl and make it his life's mission to wise her up if intelligence is a virtue he sought in women. He'd just as well not marry her if he didn't like or mind her dumbness from the start. Of course, I'm not saying this is always true of ALL men, but in my experience, it's very rare that you'll find a man who's marrying for love binding himself for any amount of time to a woman with traits they can not tolerate in the long run.
Women, on the other hand, take a different approach, often to their own detriment. We'd easily marry the dumb guy (because he's rich or cute or both--incentives in addition to loving him) with the thought that we probably can wise-up him up after things are official. Thus, due to our vanity, we jump head first into the relationship with the jerk, bedazzled by his comeliness, and delude ourselves into thinking we can inspire him to not want to be a jerk anymore. When the plan fails, we get our hearts broken and of course who do we blame, the jerk ... even though we knew he was a jerk going in. Somehow it's all his fault for us making the decision we did. After all, what right does he have to be so darn gorgeous? To be using that gorgeousness to trick women?
Again, I'm not saying the behaviours described above is exclusive to any one gender. It's not always is, but I've simply meet more men and women who are as I described than I haven't.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
Nick S Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Davina said "Good ol' Roy will probably be remembered in like fashion as radical feminists Valerie Solanas, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin and that MacKinnon woman."
This is a bit harsh Davina. I have had some disagreements with Roy, but I would never compare him to the likes of Dworkin.
I tend to agree with Roy in that it is hard finding women who you can engage with on a more intellectual level. Women tend to be more pedestrian and limited.
-------------------------
Nick, Roy is such a chipper fellow, I'm sure he'd just scoff at us simple womenfolk and say see I told you they're of no good.
Besides, I said he'd probably be remembered as such. There is the possibly that he might not. Roy do make some very valid points at his most provocative.
Furthermore, I didn't specify by whom will he be remembered in those terms. It might be you, it might be me or both of us or none of us.
I agree with about 90% of his posts. The other 10% just makes me smile wryly.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
George said "Prager took calls about this, and it was so poignant, you guys should seriously check it out. Best thing i've heard in a while. There were actually women calling in in tears saying how they only recently realised how little they had appreciated their husband, who did so much work and always showed them love, while all they did was nag and criticize."
Sorry George, but I'm a bit too cynical to be moved by this. I pretty much gave up a long time ago on waiting for women to understand what is wrong with the existing state-of-affairs. I have to confess that I have developed something of a hostile mindset towards women, and I'm not really in the mood for a heart-to-heart. Hell, not even if Oprah suddenly came around!
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Davina,
I guess Roy would have to have broad shoulders to cope with being compared with Valerie Solanas (didn't she form SCUM, Society for Cutting up Men?).
While Roy has something of a cheeky boy persona at times, I always thought he is pretty harmless.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 am
While there is certainly a biological component to some of this... I think part of it is also culturally induced.
Pretty much all of our entertainment media (television, movies, books, etc...) rely upon the predictable pattern of drama---->conflict---->climax----->resolution.
This of course leads some people to internalize what they believe a great romance is supposed to be about. None of our entertainment media start off romances in a happy and stable fashion that is maintained throughout the story.
The problem of course is that what makes for an interesting story isn't what makes for healthy and stable relationships.
Based upon this model it is impossible to have a great relationship with someone unless you start things off in a rocky fashion that is full of emotional turmoil. This is of course completely untrue... but this is what people want to see in the theaters or watch on television.
No one wants to sit through a two hour film about a story where boy meets girl... girl and boy start off have a pleasant time together... boy and girl continue to have a pleasant time together for a long time to follow... boy and girl fall in love... the end.
Instead what people want to see is a movie about where a boy and girl meet like this... the guy starts off as a jerk who can't get his life in order... the girl starts off as having just gotten out of a crappy relationship and isn't prepared for another one yet... they meet in some random fashion that ends up forcing them to be around one another even after he tells her off for something and is written off as a jerk... something happens along the way and he decides he likes her... he tries to win her over but she still sees him as a jerk... something terrible happens to her and he's there to support her... there is an instant spark... her presence in his life causes him to turn things around and get his act together... the end.
That is the problem... too many people want to achieve the hollywood version as opposed to the healthy and stable version that will serve them much better in the long run.
All too often that jerky guy who doesn't have his life straight isn't just waiting around for the right woman to get him moving... so people shouldn't be shocked when that strategy falls flat on it's face.
Unfortunately we don't have writers to ensure that the story of our lives resolves itself with a happy ending... we've got to try and do that on our own by making wise choices about who we have relationships with.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 am
Davina,
You need better company. Or do you live on a planet of creeps? Jeez what kind of girls and guys are you talking about? Talk about stereotyping! I think the whole matter of fact that you have met such people more simply means you have a very extreme case of "invisible regular guys and girls". And then you mention being invisible... funny. eh?
You also seem to think very highly of most guys around you, in that they simply want to get into the woman's pants. Are you sure you are on the right board? (I thought you were NOT a misandrist) Maybe you chose a bad example, but you did give credit for guys giving after pretty flat-chested women than ugly large-breasted ones.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 am
Why shouldn't a guy be a jerk? I mean if lots of women are attracted to him by his muscles, his charm, his whatever, and this guy can get laid at will then what incentive does he have to be monogamous or even decent towards a woman? NONE. And on that note, what incentive does a really hot chick have to be nice to those willing supplicants who approach her in a bar with compliments and free drinks? It's the same play just a difference sex.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 am
I want to rewrite that last post and add.
Women don't like to date jerks. They like to date alpha males. They want the guys who's got the muscles and the charm, and the personality that makes them tingle inside.
But guess what? Lot's of chicks want to date him so why the heck should he settle for one chick when he can have a different woman every night?
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
Boys;
Let me illustrate my viewpoint a bit further. I'm a conservative kind of guy. I own guns, I ride a Harley and do all of the things that the typical macho redneck does. I ride dirt bikes on adventure touring trips. Okay, fine. However, I'm also a classical music fanatic, for lack of a better term, and possess a huge collection of music on CD. I am also an avid tea drinker, and have a wide variety of herbal teas of every sort imaginable. I collect Mexican art and sculptures, and have decorated much of my large home in that decor. I am cultured, well read, and am always a gentleman. I pride myself on my good manners.
At 47, I can afford to play with women's minds. Call it a hobby. I really have no great desire to bed one of them down, as quite frankly, the whole process is too much work, and what the heck; I don't relish genital warts. So, I'm often approached by women at work and by acquaintances of friends.If you think women want to get married when in their twenties, just wait until they hit 30. Ah, the stories I could tell about desperate women.
Just for fun when I'm introduced to these women, I take one of two approaches. Sometimes I take the macho approach and talk about my Harley, the trips I take, the guns I own, etc., etc., ad nauseum. When I take this approach, the women are fascinated and so far, every one has managed to ask to take a ride on my Electra Glide. Every one. They want to know where I work, do I own my home....You get the point.
At other times, I take the opposite approach. I talk about my fascination and obsession with classical music. I might mention the latest cycle of Beethoven symphonies I've acquired, and this next one is the killer, I might talk about my newest Earl Grey tea. Talk about a conversation killer. One particularly attractive gal, a nurse, curled her lip when I mentioned my music, and said it was "boooring". She wouldn't have looked more disgusted if I had told her I had just wet my pants. I kid you not. For good measure, I then told her I collect herbal teas. By this time, I suspected she thought I was gay, and she quickly exited the conversation. Every time I steer the conversation along more cultured lines, each and every woman finds an excuse to end the conversation. They don't care about anything else at that point. I'm dead in their eyes.
These incidents have been repeated time after time over the years. It's a game I play, I suppose. A gift of the gifted. Or something.
I don't claim to have all of the answers. I do tell you that I have been studying women at great length for most of my life. I KNOW women very well. Far better than most women know women. I know how they think, for the most part, which is why one of them has never been able to snare me into marriage.
KNOW YOUR ENEMY.
I just ask you to ponder my remarks, and if you find anything in them that might help you, then I suppose that's good enough. Remember, the wise always listen to those who have gone before. The world is full of fools. Don't be one of them. The stakes are too high, and child support payments seem to go on forever. I just offer my opinion from time to time in the sincere hope that I might save some of you from almost certain disaster. The game is dangerous today, and isn't worth the effort.
Christopher
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
"I agree with you Nick, the legal and social deck is stacked. As well as the laws, society loves to believe the negative stereotypes about men, that they're all jerks like you say, while we pretend women are paragons of virtue."
The funny thing is, even though the deck is stacked in women's favour men still continue to play the game. If you are playing a card game and you have been losing money all night only to discover someone has been stacking the deck, do you continue playing and losing money? Or do you say 'f*** you' and walk out?
Men continue to play the game even though the rules are stacked in women's favour. If you look at the rules, there is no way men can legally win. It is like tossing a coin. Heads women win. Tails men lose. Even when women lose they win, because society gives them all the sympathy and victim power while vilifying men.
Much of the reason why women don't have much respect for men is because they believe men are too stupid to see through women's games. No-one thinks much of a patsy.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:11 am
barsin Says:
March 1st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Jesus, Bernie, I expected better out of you. Another doomsday philosopher I swear to god I've had it with this movement.
A doomsday is always possible and it does and will come in many forms. We may or may not have a catastrophic natural or man made event happen to us great or small. By small I mean that many people have died because of simple breakdowns on a road less traveled on a two lane highway somewhere because of a lack of common sense and survival skills (this is one of the most likely tings to happen to you or some other equally mundane tragic event Remember James Kim? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120702158.html there are scores of these stories in just the past year.
The next frontier is the stars, Bern old boy.
Nope not for you, me, or our families only the privileged so you best better know how to drop back and punt
We'll be worse than ALIENS.
Could be
Nothing is going to happen here on earth, except the grass will grow.
You are fooling yourself. It may not happen in our lifetime but it will happen and if it does happen tomorrow it is better to be prepared (sorry the almost 40 year of boy scouting in me)
Starvation? Genocide? Not a problem for us, as we've so recently shown.
What?
I'd nuke the place from orbit, just to be safe.
Not a bad idea
Just look at you and Christopher viciously attacking one of the few female men's rights advocates on this board Good job guys. I'm so proud of you both.
Do not include me as I said I was just having some fun. I bust everyone’s chops, am I not supposed to do this because she is a woman? I expected better out of you.
Christopher is a sexist who cloaks his bigotry in religion. What the hell, Bernie, you riding with this guy?
Nope just being playful
I personally crap better Christians than Christopher.
Not nice, and beneath you.
It's exactly this that hamstrings the men's movement
I do and will treat everyone exactly how Bernie treats anyone. It does not matter if your are man, woman, white, black, Christian, atheist, etc.
This was to be posted last night but my daughter needed to get on line and I fell asleep, sorry
b
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:15 am
Norman,
I will get a copy of Steve Moxon's The Woman Racket. I am surprised that any publisher would actually publish something by that title. Maybe 'the times, they are a-changin' .
From what I read at Amazon, it seems that Moxon has not written on this topic before.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
Pankaj Says:
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 am
"Davina, You need better company. Or do you live on a planet of creeps? Jeez what kind of girls and guys are you talking about? Talk about stereotyping!"
Pankaj, I wasn't talking about men in general, but "jerks" in general. And even then I conceded the point that my observations did not refer to all jerks. I can see now that I didn't make that clear enough. My post refers to the "jerks" as discussed in the OP. What makes them so appealing and why women constantly choose to be with them.
"You also seem to think very highly of most guys around you, in that they simply want to get into the woman's pants."
Either you read what you wanted to read or I gave really poor examples. I concede that it might be a mixture of both, but c'mon ... read the post. I tried to give two scenarios in which men act fundamentally different when there's something about a woman he doesn't like: 1) when he's only interested in getting sex and 2) when he's in love and want to have a life with the woman. When men just want to have sex, they don't really care about a woman's faults because they don't intend to stick around long enough for it to bother them; and 2) when they're in love it's another story.
"Are you sure you are on the right board? (I thought you were NOT a misandrist)"
Thank you, I'm on the right board, and you're right, I'm not a misandrist.
"Maybe you chose a bad example, but you did give credit for guys giving after pretty flat-chested women than ugly large-breasted ones."
This is how I know you did not read the post. I know it's long but please don't accuse me of saying something that is right before you to check. I wasn't giving anyone credit. What I was trying to say is that the men, being visual creatures, would rather go after the flat-chested gorgeous girl even though she may be everything he doesn't want in a woman while a woman who just might be great for him is overlooked because she's lacking in the looks departing.
---------------------------------------
Again, read what I write and not what you think I meant to write.
I'll try to clarify my points again for those who might grossly misinterprete what I wrote in the same way Pankaj did:
1) A man is not a jerk just because he's confident and assertive. My husband is confident and assertive, and he can hardly be described as a jerk generally speaking. Ironically what turns a man into a jerk is confidence and assertiveness coupled with stunning good looks. Why? Because women tend to flock to men who are easy on the eyes and capable of skilfully enrapturing them. When too many options become available to you, it goes to your head. One easy example: celebrities.
To me, MXY exudes confidence in who he is and he asserts his case for the beta man quite convincingly and eloquently. Sure, he's anonymously posting on a board, but even so he's unapologetic and he's comfortable in his own skin. My impression of from what and how he writes him is that while he's soft and sensitive, being cognizant of feminist-influenced female nature, he will not let any woman take him for granted due to his virtue or make him feel bad about himself. It takes confidence and assertiveness to put women in their place.
Now imagine a guy with the exact personality traits of MXY as described above, but let's say he wouldn't qualify for GQ's man of the year award in the looks department. Do you think the ladies will be flocking around to chirp at his nest, even though he has everything else going for him and he's a nice, good guy?
2) I've found that most men are not interested in changing women, at least not to the extent that women often seek to change men. If there's something especially offensive about a woman, a man will simply avoid interaction with her unless he's simply on a sexual mission.
When he marries a woman on the other hand, he has resigned himself to tolerate the things he doesn't like about her. Otherwise he doesn't enter the relationship if the woman's behaviour is so offensive that he can never see himself getting over it, used to it or tolerating it. That is why women, like Colleen from the other thread, who subscribe to the strong, independent woman paradigm find it hard to find a man. The men perhaps cannot see themselves living a peaceful life with someone who always have to have control and power, and thus they run in the other direction.
3) The quest to change men, however, seems to be a natural instinct in woman whether or not we're aware of it because we evaluate the world and everyone in it based on our moral compass. Many of us enter a relationship, particularly marriage, with the subconscious thought that we can change or "train" our men into what we want them to be. I'm not talking about the normal adjustments both men and women have to make when they invite a partner into their lives, but more on a fundamental level and in emasculating ways. When it doesn't work, we accuse the guy of being a "jerk". Far too many women in relationships that I've come across seem not to realise that they only person they have the right to change is themselves. In my observation, men (disregard the abusive ones) seem to get that changing someone, particular intimate partners, is not up to them. Men look to themselves to find the problem, women look away from themselves and they continue to do this because of feminist ideology which teaches them a man is always to blame for their problems. I've always been sympathetic to men's issues, even when I didn't know how or where to go to show my support. I can tell you that just by coming here and reading things from the male perspective has completely improved the way I relate to the men in my life. Can you imagine how much better things would be if the male perspective was allowed to be a part of the discussion in the general society?
4) It think it's a fair position to suggest men are visual creatures. For example, no matter how lovely the woman he's with is, if a gorgeous woman walks by a man is going take notice. Now imagine the archetypical "jerk", in a nightclub or social setting, he'll seek out the most gorgeous woman in the room, thereby virtually rendering the not so attractive girl invisible. As a matter fact, not only the jerk will surrender to this behaviour, but also other men who are not jerks because this is just inherent to the male pschye.
I think overall you took my post to mean it refered to all men. No, my attempt was to give my take on why jerks are so popular among the girls and why women continuously fall for their act and later blame everyone else but themselves when they get hurt. I guess I didn't do a good job of it, but I hope this provided a clearer view of what I'm trying to say. That being said, you have to be interested in reading what I write not read what you want to see.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
I totally concur with Davina Looks do matter. You can't expect to come off like Brad Pitt if you look like Drew Carey.
There is some leeway, but Davina is correct in her assessment of players and how and why they get to play. Ditto the women. Guys should read her post again (which she reposted) and take note.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
FYI:
As with all valid male-perspective observations, this one (that women tend to date jerks and then complain) is met by feminists with actively constructed counter-discourse. It is called NiceGuy(R) or NiceGuy(TM). Here's a recent thread on Alas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/02/07/the-girls-guide-to-nice-guys-tm/
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Thanks for that last post, Davina. I appreciate that it came from the heart. I am also struggling with why women want to change men - it seems too ingrained to be cultural - it seems almost biological to me.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
"The jerk scores high points with women for the same reasons the lovely heavy-chested bimbo scores high with men: they are great to look at and physically a price to have on your arm"
Do they? I disagree, usually men do not think what other people (or men) would think about them if they go for what they like. A guy could give a rat's ass what his friends think of his spouse and he would rather not have them competing for her attention.
On the other hand, the jerk pattern is consistent, while the "heavy chested" pattern is not actually true. When I said I was giving credit, I was precisely talking about what you said about men being visual creatures and hence going for better looking women than "good for them" women (which interestingly enough is implied in your post as ugly big breasted ones, but maybe I am reading into it too much).
"It's not always is, but I've simply meet more men and women who are as I described than I haven't." Are you talking about men and women or jerks? It seems you are talking about the former even though you claim to talk about the latter.
"Men will almost always go for the most attractive girl in the room even when she's as dumb as a tree stump."
"They're able to attract women in droves because of their stunning physical appearance."
When I read that I think you mean to say that "all jerks have stunning appearance", "attractive girls MAYBE stupid". I disagree with the first, but I concede the second because its a possibility. As for the first, I have seen jerks who are not good looking or manly at all which made me think back then that women like to have a pet project at home called "the defective man" which they will keep constantly working on, at least while life and biology allows them to. It almost looks as if they seek out the junk of humanity with the skill of an avid junkyard scavenger.
Maybe it has to do with what the male sexual attraction leads to (pursuit for sex and relationship) as compared to the female's (its almost a done deal).
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
(Davina ... way back up the thread stated ) -- "Hopefully in the near future, when men and women are standing on genuinely equal footing ... we can look back on the early days of this movement and reminisce. Good ol' Roy will probably be remembered in like fashion as radical feminists Valerie Solanas, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin and that MacKinnon woman."
Now, what precisely did I ever say (or not say) to inspire such dismissive insoucience in you?
I would pay lots of money to have a nice dinner with Valerie, Germaine, Andrea, and Catherine. I like to understand how my opponents think. And even though I would disagree with 99% of their sentiments, it is always a pleasure to be with intelligent and angry women. (Unless they have guns.)
Frankly I am more concerned about your hopefulness.
And your concept of time.
And please define "equal footing."
Being described as "good 'ol" is conflicting. Which quality is more important?
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
"If you (male or female) have a thing for someone and they tell you they don't return it, waiting around and playing at being a sympathetic friend in the expectation that you'll wear them down and get yours one day makes you an a$$hole, not a friend."
This is from:
http://divalion.livejournal.com/163615.html
I suggest anyone who cares to know some stuff about this subject actually read the whole thing, and internalize it. This is not to say this chick has it figured out, just that she has a damn good perspective on some things. One thing I would add that seems to get missed a lot, is that "nice guys" can avoid a lot of the anguish if they simply refuse to let the woman involved use, yes USE, him for the "intimacy" portion of her "relationship" with the local jerk. Hanging around, hoping for scraps, just allows her to use you for all the "feel good" moments, and the jerk for the "feel up" moments. You're playing yourself for a patsy if you hang out hoping for her to "come around". Don't believe me? Tell your "friend" that you really don't want to hear about her relationship, but you're happy to talk about anything else....see how long she hangs around you....
But when it comes right down to it, I'd rather be the guy they have sex with than the guy they marry.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
"You can't expect to come off like Brad Pitt if you look like Drew Carey."
You don't honestly think Drew Carey has trouble gettin some do you? The beauty of women is they are more attracted to personality than looks or cash.....in the short term. Long term, well, I believe you could be damn near perfect, and she'll STILL be looking around to see if she missed something better.
That's OK though, since I do too.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Roy said: "I would pay lots of money to have a nice dinner with Valerie, Germaine, Andrea, and Catherine."
That would be one hefty bill if were feeding Andrea! Sorry, couldn't resist. Glenn, are you gonna delete this for speaking badly of both the dead and the obese?
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Andrea could just be exhumed and propped up at the table .... like a nice Irish wake.
She would not add much to the tab, and even less to the conversation.
(Of course I know she died.)
But, her presence is still lingering....
Big girl.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Davina says: "George, you make an interesting point and I'll try to articulate why. Assertiveness, confidence, no nonsense are traits anyone can possess but it may not be as attractive on everyone else as it is on the jerk. Here's why: the common denominator I see here is looks, as in physical appearance (not how you dress, walk, talk etc). The jerk scores high points with women for the same reasons the lovely heavy-chested bimbo scores high with men: they are great to look at and physically a price to have on your arm (more than likely everyone else will be struck by their comeliness).
For example the typical characteristics of a jerk (suave, arrogance disguised as confidence, flirtatious etc) would never benefit an ugly man. In like fashion, a well-endowed ugly girl will probably only attract male attention if she's all that's available or if she's with people who are uglier than her."
Davina's argument is logical, coherent, and based upon savvy observations of men and women. Pity that her conclusion is totally wrong.
For starters, I've leveraged being a jerk successfully and I'm ugly as hell (I can at least prove the ugly part.) Also, well-endowed ugly girls can attract male attention simply by being AVAILABLE. Davina, haven't you ever heard of hookers?
Ergo, since most women (even ugly ones) can get sex and even a relationship far more easily than most men then it makes sense to argue that if they're attracted to jerks, then they must DESIRE jerks in their own right and not just qualities they share with confident, "assertive" men. Logically, wouldn't a supposedly smart woman be attracted to a physically attractive, but shy guy and then "change" him into a self-confident assertive man? (Clearly, a woman being attracted to him would make that task rather easy...)
Tony S says: "I totally concur with Davina Looks do matter. You can't expect to come off like Brad Pitt if you look like Drew Carey."
Interesting example. Hollywood stars tend to be the biggest users of escorts and prostitutes. It astonishes me that Brad Pitt was interested in a nutjob like Anjolina Jolie. Then again, it's strongly rumored that BOTH of them are bisexual.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Steve says: "Thanks for that last post, Davina. I appreciate that it came from the heart. I am also struggling with why women want to change men - it seems too ingrained to be cultural - it seems almost biological to me."
I don't think it's levied just towards men. Women's daytime programs are full of "makeover" shows where plain looking women are taken out of the audience and then pimped out with fancy clothes and cosmetics. Another popular series with women are the "home makeover" programs where they take dumpy homes and make them into charming cottages. My wife loved Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
I get a kick out of how stupid men can be to go to "ladies night". If a man wants to pick up emotionally vulnerable and often hot chicks, he need only go to Barnes and Noble and hang out at the "Self Help" section. There are more women there than a strip club. (Another great place: The women's shoe store. No straight men for miles around!) Look at the supermarket check out. They're full of women's magazines teaching women how to be better lovers, how to understand men, and (my father gets a kick out of this), how to both make delicious fattening desserts AND lose weight!
Ok, where I'm going with this is that women wanting to "fix things up" isn't necessarily a bad thing. They just want to make their life better. I viewed the appearance of this behavior in my future wife as a sign that she really cared about me. (I then immediately worked on tempering this trait so she wouldn't drive me insane.)
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
(Davina) --- "...heavy-chested bimbo ..."
That is incredibly sexist!
Why would you imply that women with large breasts are necessarily "bimbos?"
Personally, I have never observed any correlation between breast size and I.Q..
I am calling you out girl!
You just stepped in your own poop.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Roy Says: "Now, what precisely did I ever say (or not say) to inspire such dismissive insoucience in you?"
Roy, old boy, please refer to my 1.14pm post.
As for this one: "That is incredibly sexist! Why would you imply that women with large breasts are necessarily "bimbos?"
Because in the context given, I happen to be talking about women who to have large breasts and are bimbos. Furthermore, considering the reputation the MRM enjoys outside our little bubble, some have suggested that just being associated with the movement is sexist of me. So there you go. "Definitions belong to the definers, not the defined"
And P.S. you call me girl, I get to call you old boy ;-)
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Roy said: "(Davina) --- "...heavy-chested bimbo ..."
That is incredibly sexist!
Why would you imply that women with large breasts are necessarily "bimbos?"
Personally, I have never observed any correlation between breast size and I.Q..
I am calling you out girl!
You just stepped in your own poop."
Good call Roy!
I don't think it's "sexist" but maybe more like catty. Or possibly she's directing her observation towards the men who are willing to go crazy for big breasted women.
To her credit, she's claimed that women are more likely to put up with jerks from attractive men than from unattractive men. If anything, she's being a bit too simplistic.
My friends who are attractive towards women (tall, well built, work out, square face) often experience a similar reaction from women that men typically display. The women go ga-ga and sometimes lavish them with attention and presents. We snigger about it. Just recently, one of them was in a hotel lobby in Pittsburgh and got Stones tickets, at face value, from a woman who didn't need them because she was called on business. Some other guys get waitresses, stewardesses, or even McD's clerks who tell them "no charge" for their meal and then ask them for their phone number (they often give fake numbers.)
Overall, there are few men who are really that hot and that may be why women are so much more controlled about their sexuality than men. I'm 42 and I find that normal women, especially in the states, don't get my blood pressure up anymore when they walk by. It's SUPER! It's like this huge burden has been lifted from my, er, shoulders.
This may also explain why women are so vulnerable to jerks. Men are more used to rejection from the opposite sex so when women are victims of their own rarely exercised libido, they may not be prepared for it...
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
PolishKnight said "For starters, I've leveraged being a jerk successfully and I'm ugly as hell (I can at least prove the ugly part.)"
Yeah, but how tall are you? Women are height whores and height trumps ugly. If you're above 6 foot, your face is more than counteracted by your height. If you're 6'3" you can be Frankenstein and have women swooning.
Height is to women what huge breasts are to men. Men will choose an ugly-faced women just because of her breasts and women will go for the uglies if they're tall enough.
Still waiting for Glenn to clamp down on me! Hehe.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I'm 5'6". Just short enough to be a troll. And I have a fat baby face too. And yes, I'm aware that height "trumps" ugly for women. I always thought height _was_ ugly for women.
About men overlooking ugly faced women in leau of breasts. I'm reminded of Dog, the bounty hunter's wife, with her huge breasts but awful face. I think, for men, face trumps tits. If a woman has an ugly face I find it difficult to get past that.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
PK Says: "For starters, I've leveraged being a jerk successfully and I'm ugly as hell (I can at least prove the ugly part.)
PK, I hear you, but I can't agree. I work in an multinational conglomorate. Through my job I meet men from all walks of life. Many of them, though not so easy on the eyes, are capable, confident and assertive individuals. They lament just as frequently as the single women do about not being able to find a date.
Give this guy a limo, a couple millions in the back and Trump Tower, and suddenly this rail-thin, bespectacled genius is the toast of the town. As his option amongst women increases, he either becomes a jerk of his own free will (because his new status has flown to his head) or he's forced to act like a jerk because that's why the ladies like.
Take away the limo, the cash, and the tower and this guys becomes 1 of 2 things. 1) He goes back to being a highly successful loser with a bunch of "friends" who either gives him one-time sex, drunk and lost their mind sex, pity sex, revenge sex (against the jerk ... of course) no sex ... everything but regular sex or 2) His capability, confidence and assertiveness work against him with the women because there are NO incentives for the women to tolerate what they, being so influenced by modern feminist thought, might construe as this ugly man's aggressive and dastardly behaviour. Previously when he had the life of Donald Trump, the incentive for being with such a grossly unattractive man was status, riches, friends in high places.
In your case, if you're as ugly as you say you are (I'll take your word for it) something else might be drawing the women to you. What, I'm not sure.
"Also, well-endowed ugly girls can attract male attention simply by being AVAILABLE. Davina, haven't you ever heard of hookers?"
Sure, if nothing "better" is available. If he has the option to choose between a well-endowed ugly chick and a flat-chested gorgeous one ... hell yes, he's gonna choose the latter because men appreciate eye candy. You can't seriously look at me (figuratively speaking of course :-) and tell me otherwise, PK.
"Ergo, since most women (even ugly ones) can get sex and even a relationship far more easily than most men then it makes sense to argue that if they're attracted to jerks, then they must DESIRE jerks in their own right and not just qualities they share with confident, "assertive" men.
Two things:
1) Yes, that may be true but who will she be getting this regular sex from? See Dan M's 1.29pm post ... their reserves, guys like the one I described above. I think DM said it pretty well: "One thing I would add that seems to get missed a lot, is that "nice guys" can avoid a lot of the anguish if they simply refuse to let the woman involved use, yes USE, him for the "intimacy" portion of her "relationship" with the local jerk. Hanging around, hoping for scraps, just allows her to use you for all the "feel good" moments, and the jerk for the "feel up" moments. You're playing yourself for a patsy if you hang out hoping for her to "come around"."
Only in the case of the ugly girl, this will only occur (going to a nice, perhaps not so attractive guy) when she has tired of trying to get the "jerk" to notice her.
2) I don't deny that they're female jerks. They're what we call b!tches. But there's a fundamental difference I've observed between female and male b!tches.
i. The male b!tch (or jerk whichever you prefer ... for me variety is the spice of life) will basically bang anything in skirt and quickly move on to his next conquest without an ounce of remorse or a backward glance. He couldn't care less what you do or don't do once his interaction with you is over.
ii. The female b!tch, though the possibility that she'll behave like her male counterpart exists, is likely to settle on one partner. One she can neuter and esmasculate. She has to be in control of both the relationship and her man. Her word is King.
"Logically, wouldn't a supposedly smart woman be attracted to a physically attractive, but shy guy and then "change" him into a self-confident assertive man?"
No, not when she, like most "strong, independent" modern women, is a slave to sexist feminist ideology that insists that SHE should be the only on in control. Why would she "change" him into a self-confident, assertive man when he's probably not attractive enough or rich enough to draw the envy of her friends? To give her status. She has to at least get something back to so unwisely compromise her "power". What's her incentive?
"Ok, where I'm going with this is that women wanting to "fix things up" isn't necessarily a bad thing."
When you're talking about houses, no. But in a relationship I believe more women can and should learn that relational improvement starts first with them. Don't try to change a man through manipulation, then when he refuses you blame HIM for your plan having failed. He's simply being what he has always probably been, himself: a jerk or a nice guy or somewhere in between. It's nobody's place to "change" anyone but themselves. Rather than "change" someone it's simply better to leave the relationship or stop consorting with men you feel compelled to "change".
That's the problem I usually have about women who complain about jerks being jerks. They knew he was a jerk from the beginning, even if he deceived them into thinking he's some nice guy, they're always signs ... signs that can even break through their love haze. Why on earth would you get with a jerk if you claim to not like jerks??? These women need to look into themselves and see why they always seem to fall into this pattern. Perhaps the only good thing with jerks is that they know they are jerks and they use it to their advantage until they're good and ready to change. That's their prerogative. Rarely do they try to blame anyone else for their behaviour. Most of the ones I've talked to have admitted that they KNOW their behaviour is wrong ... no buts, no ifs, no my momma didn't love me bs. You're the fool if you let him sucker you. Deep down these women KNOW this but their vanity ... they always believed they'd be the one to inspire change in him with no evidence (eg: signs from him) to suggest this may be true.... is their downfall.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
PK: "I think, for men, face trumps tits. If a woman has an ugly face I find it difficult to get past that."
Davina (1.00am): "If she's at a party with flat-chested but gorgeous women she'll have very slim chances of gaining exclusive male attention for herself, even with men who are normally attracted to large breasts."
THANK YOU. Considering that you've also admitted that you're a jerk (or once were?), you've just admitted EXACTLY what I've been trying to get across all evening. Even when a man loves big breasts, he'd rather trade them in for a pretty or prettier face if that's available to him and even if the woman carry that pretty face doesn't have any breasts! Because that's how jerks behave.
Simplistic?
Maybe because it simply is!
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I'm pretty sure that if Davina and I ever actually met, we would within five minutes become fast friends -- or the police would be called.
Still can't make up my mind.
I find it really funny that she has four categories for sex --- all of them involving a woman "giving" a man access to her body.
And, BTW -- what is the female equivalent of a "jerk?"
Please, no jokes about mothers, sisters, or honorable whores.....
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
PK: "My friends who are attractive towards women (tall, well built, work out, square face) often experience a similar reaction from women that men typically display. The women go ga-ga and sometimes lavish them with attention and presents. We snigger about it. Just recently, one of them was in a hotel lobby in Pittsburgh and got Stones tickets, at face value, from a woman who didn't need them because she was called on business. Some other guys get waitresses, stewardesses, or even McD's clerks who tell them "no charge" for their meal and then ask them for their phone number (they often give fake numbers.)"
PK, you've basically said THE exact same thing I've been saying for the past 2 or so hours, yet you call my analysis "simplistic"?
Let's say your friends were round-faced, short, balding and skinny with loose skin but very bright, intelligent, confident in their abilities with assertiveness being a natural part of their persona ... would they have gotten the same treatment? You cant look at me with a straight face (figuratively speaking) and say yes.
(P.S. Pls forgive all the typos in all my previous posts. Glenn, you really need to get an edit button on here!)
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
(Davina) -- "Roy, old boy, please refer to my 1.14pm post. "
Wow! I just re-read the whole thing.
It (and your subsequent posts) prove that you have an incredible talent.
You can be verbose and incoherent at the same time.
You can extend to fifteen paragraphs what a philosopher would summarize in one sentence.
Can you never stop being unquiet?
The man you live with never posts.
Funny why he's so quiet.
Do you have a lot of duct tape in your house?
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Davina: "Because that's how jerks behave."
Actually, what I should have written is this: "Because that's how men behave. Jerks are only like that because they're male (in this case), and males are visual creatures."
Okay, I need a break. Good luck hammering away at how "simplistic" my analysis is! :-)
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
"...males are visual creatures."
Davina, you got that right and I am going to have a hardtime visualizing you as an adversary from now on.
How come all the smart girls are already taken?
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hello Davina,
Perhaps you're generalizing that ugly "jerk" men MUST be wealthy and successful because those of the types of men you knew. You have a point about feminism causing women to reject ugly, and loser men but my point is that these women reject men in general. Except for a few exceptionally attractive men, most don't "attract" women. They feel a need to engage in chivalry or displays of "equality" which undermine their confidence and assertiveness.
Davina wrote: ""Also, well-endowed ugly girls can attract male attention simply by being AVAILABLE. Davina, haven't you ever heard of hookers?"
Sure, if nothing "better" is available. If he has the option to choose between a well-endowed ugly chick and a flat-chested gorgeous one ... hell yes, he's gonna choose the latter because men appreciate eye candy. You can't seriously look at me (figuratively speaking of course :-) and tell me otherwise, PK."
This is assuming we can even talk about most men "choosing" women. At best, men "choose" which women to approach and go through a series of motions to try to get in bed with. Nearly all men have experienced rejection at some time or another consequently the notion of "choosing" a woman is a useless paradigm for most of them. You're projecting your own feminine perspective of choosing which man you'll allow to sleep with you on men. It doesn't work that way. Men and women are NOT the same. Has anyone every pointed that out to you? :-)
Men therefore consider a variety of factors in choosing a woman to _approach_ including not just the best he wants personally but also what he can reasonably get. His judgment is also impaired by his own self-esteem. Most men set their sights downward due to harsh rejection. By the same token, most plain looking women have overly high opinions of themselves because so many beta males hit on them. This phenomenon is, in my opinion, one of the foundations of modern feminism and male bashing. Most men are like weak kittens begging for kibbles-n-bits.
Davina continues: "Only in the case of the ugly girl, this will only occur (going to a nice, perhaps not so attractive guy) when she has tired of trying to get the "jerk" to notice her."
This would be true ONLY if "ugly girls" fell for jerks. The fact is that plenty of attractive women fall for jerks too.
Davina continues: "ii. The female b!tch, though the possibility that she'll behave like her male counterpart exists, is likely to settle on one partner. One she can neuter and esmasculate. She has to be in control of both the relationship and her man. Her word is King."
I've seen plenty of bitches that manage a stable of puppy dog nice-guys. And "jerks" are just as likely to be controlling and demanding. That's why they're called jerks, yes?
Davina: "No, not when she, like most "strong, independent" modern women, is a slave to sexist feminist ideology that insists that SHE should be the only on in control. Why would she "change" him into a self-confident, assertive man when he's probably not attractive enough or rich enough to draw the envy of her friends? To give her status. She has to at least get something back to so unwisely compromise her "power". What's her incentive?"
I didn't say these women were perfectly reasonable or emotionally healthy. They crave attention from powerful, self-confident men but at the same time like to be in control. Women's equality doesn't work. Haven't you been paying any attention to what I've been saying? Sheesh! Now I know I'm dealing with a woman...
Davina says: "When you're talking about houses, no. But in a relationship I believe more women can and should learn that relational improvement starts first with them. Don't try to change a man through manipulation, then when he refuses you blame HIM for your plan having failed. He's simply being what he has always probably been, himself: a jerk or a nice guy or somewhere in between. It's nobody's place to "change" anyone but themselves. Rather than "change" someone it's simply better to leave the relationship or stop consorting with men you feel compelled to "change"."
I agree that we shouldn't manipulate others into what we want them to be. But at the same time, I think communication and relationships are about growth and changing to be more compatible, don't you think? I think it's a good thing for us to improve ourselves and work with others in our lives to grow, but we need to be respectful and reasonable in our timetable. That's all.
Davina says: "That's the problem I usually have about women who complain about jerks being jerks. They knew he was a jerk from the beginning, even if he deceived them into thinking he's some nice guy, they're always signs ... signs that can even break through their love haze."
Another sign I'm dealing with a woman: They overrely on "signs". A lot of men do this too: Like to draw grand conclusions from small, petty things. A recruiter told me that onetime a manager rejected a woman applicant because he caught her fixing a run in her panty hose in the parking lot from his office window.
"Signs" can sometimes point to the end of the world as per Revelations OR they could just mean that you shouldn't park on the north side of the road wednesday morning. Ironically, my wife (and I) both put out signs of things we hate when we first met each other and found a number of very innocent explanations for them. People have a tendency to use "signs" to only shore up their own harmful prejudices rather than avoid them.
Jerks possess the emotional savvy to know which signs women look for (both positive and negative) and present them accordingly. That's what they do: They control people for their benefit. That's what they view these people as: tools to please themselves. I've noticed that jerks are especially clever at knowing how to be sweet and sugary when they know it's to their advantage.
The fundamental problem isn't that men (or women) avoid jerks so much as they adjust what is reasonable to expect in a relationship altogether. Jerks are kind of like the telemarketers of the relationship world: "Do you want to make millions in real estate in a month?" If you already have a good idea of what works for you then you won't go with some huckster. But enough about the 2008 election...
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Davina says: "PK: "I think, for men, face trumps tits. If a woman has an ugly face I find it difficult to get past that."
Davina (1.00am): "If she's at a party with flat-chested but gorgeous women she'll have very slim chances of gaining exclusive male attention for herself, even with men who are normally attracted to large breasts."
THANK YOU. Considering that you've also admitted that you're a jerk (or once were?), you've just admitted EXACTLY what I've been trying to get across all evening. Even when a man loves big breasts, he'd rather trade them in for a pretty or prettier face if that's available to him and even if the woman carry that pretty face doesn't have any breasts! Because that's how jerks behave.
Simplistic?
Maybe because it simply is!"
There's a lot of conditionals in your analysis. "If that's available to him". If the pretty faced women are being passive and the ugly faced big titted woman is expressing interest in men, she'll have total control of them.
Ironically, that's how I think many campus feminists wind up with boyfriends: They are very outspoken and active and communicate while many women, even more attractive women, are wallflowers. It shocks me, but many men are willing to date and even marry women who openly despise men. If men really judged women based upon their brains, feminism wouldn't exist.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I get such a kick out of Davina. I sparred with her lots on SYG as well, tough bird that one. Plus, she's 100% right...admit it. We go nowhere if we refuse to acknowledge the counterpart truths we complain women never see....
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Davina says: "PK, you've basically said THE exact same thing I've been saying for the past 2 or so hours, yet you call my analysis "simplistic"?
Let's say your friends were round-faced, short, balding and skinny with loose skin but very bright, intelligent, confident in their abilities with assertiveness being a natural part of their persona ... would they have gotten the same treatment? You cant look at me with a straight face (figuratively speaking) and say yes. "
I never said these men were jerks towards the women though (at least not until they gave out fake numbers.) They attracted women based upon their exceptional good looks alone. The vast majority of the rest of men, in the fraction of a percent, aren't attractive to women at all. Women won't give them that kind of treatment while there are plenty of men who give plain jane women exceptional treatment.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Davina wrote: "Davina: "Because that's how jerks behave."
Actually, what I should have written is this: "Because that's how men behave. Jerks are only like that because they're male (in this case), and males are visual creatures."
Okay, I need a break. Good luck hammering away at how "simplistic" my analysis is! :-)"
I don't mind typos, BTW. Or even simplistic analysii. (spelling?)
Anyways, I'm a bit confused. You just emphasized that women care about looks just as much, if not moreso, than men:
"Let's say your friends were round-faced, short, balding and skinny with loose skin but very bright, intelligent, confident in their abilities with assertiveness being a natural part of their persona ... would they have gotten the same treatment?"
So women are just as visual as men EXCEPT they also want men as protectors and providers too. Trying to claim that men are MORE visual than woman is an attempt to balance out women's other demands. Sometimes, things are just the way they are.
Now THAT'S a truthful simplification!
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
That, and I know from personal experience, as well as anecdotal evidence that people follow predictable patterns. To wit:
I was out at a bar with a PUA friend of mine. He bet me he could get a woman to follow his exact script, thus:
Girl comes up and asks to bum a smoke (I'm interested in you).
He tells her he'll give her one if she makes a funny animal noise (earn my attention).
She will then meow like a cat. Softly (umm, we should all know the underlying thing here).
He tells her that at least three other people have to hear, or no dice (exert dominance).
She meows louder.
He gives her a smoke (reward).
She then asks for a light (frustrated).
He tells her only if you give me your cell number (conditional acceptance).
She does.
He calls it and listens for the ring (shows he will not tolerate games).
He hears it, gives her a light, then literally tells her to "beat it" (acknowledges her, then makes her unimportant enough to waste more time on - for now).
Takes her home at the end of the night (after other men buy her drinks all night, because she's been stewing over the earlier "rejection").
It all unfolded EXACTLY as he said it would, right down to the words she used.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Roy says: ""...males are visual creatures."
Davina, you got that right and I am going to have a hardtime visualizing you as an adversary from now on.
How come all the smart girls are already taken?"
There are literally millions of 30 something never-married high-income career women out there Roy. Some of them were so desperate that they even dated ME. I almost feel sorry for them...
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
PK, Davina has pretty much been arguing that women have impossible standards for some time now....
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Davina is pretending that she is asleep and not reading this thread.
That is not fair.
Girl?
You know you are cheating.....
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
PS - I love tough girls.
I think maybe Davina and I met once at the House of Blues and she was more than a little friendly while pushing her buttocks into my personal space,
Davina has "moves" as my daughters would say.
So it is all good fun, and potentially educational.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
Roy Says: "I think maybe Davina and I met once at the House of Blues and she was more than a little friendly while pushing her buttocks into my personal space."
You know I tolerate a lot of the b.s. you sometimes write because I'm woman enough to see when you have a point, but you're out of line here. I find your above comment offensive and unnecessary. If you can't stick to the discussion, and keep derogatory personal remarks out of it, do not address me.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 am
Davina,
I agree with what you say about wealth enhancing jerk status -- give a guy a limo and some cash and all of a suddent he's Donnie Trump.
But keep in mind, wealth is relative. You might need a limo in New York, but in suburbia, it could just be a nice car and status job and in poor neighborhoods, status is gained in other ways (nice cars, good skills at whatever). And also, beyond, male status is different depending what part of the country you live in. Being a good athlete holds a lot of sway on the West Coast; being an intellectual means a lot in the East. Neither the teach nor the surfer might earn a lot, but they posses status qualities that are valued in certain circles.
However female beauty, I've read, transcends culture, which is why women love to travel. The nice looking ones will always find doors being opened and someone willing to pay.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
PK, when I read what you write and what I write, we seem to be saying a lot of the same things. But you seem to want to out-talk me, so beside it being the middle of the night, I'm not going to rehash this anymore after this. This will be my final attempt to clarify my points by using random examples from your latest post to show that we actually are saying pretty much the same thing:
Davina:
2) I don't deny that they're female jerks. They're what we call b!tches. But there's a fundamental difference I've observed between female and male b!tches.
i. The male b!tch (or jerk whichever you prefer ... for me variety is the spice of life) will basically bang anything in skirt and quickly move on to his next conquest without an ounce of remorse or a backward glance. He couldn't care less what you do or don't do once his interaction with you is over.
PK:
And "jerks" are just as likely to be controlling and demanding. That's why they're called jerks, yes?
I can see no real difference in what you're saying and what I'm saying. The guy I'm describing above, a "jerk", is most definitely the one doing all the controlling and demanding, otherwise he wouldn't be coming and going and bedding as he pleases with a string of new women every week.
Davina:
ii. The female b!tch, though the possibility that she'll behave like her male counterpart exists, is likely to settle on one partner. One she can neuter and esmasculate. She has to be in control of both the relationship and her man. Her word is King.
PK:
Davina continues: "ii. The female b!tch, though the possibility that she'll behave like her male counterpart exists, is likely to settle on one partner. One she can neuter and esmasculate. She has to be in control of both the relationship and her man. Her word is King. I've seen plenty of bitches that manage a stable of puppy dog nice-guys."
That's what I'm saying too. I just think male and female jerks operate differently. In my observations male jerks don't have "relationships" like the female jerk does. He has conquests that do not last any significant period of time. Some female jerks act like their male counterparts, but most, IMO, don't. They'd rather enter what might appear to others as a "real" relationship, he'd be the "boyfriend" and have control and make demands on him over a longer period of time.
PK: "This would be true ONLY if "ugly girls" fell for jerks. The fact is that plenty of attractive women fall for jerks too."
You make it sounds as if ugly girls don't fall for jerks. Man, check out high school. I have a teenaged son who's a senior and it's incredible how these kids behave. EVERY girl wants the jocks, the hot, popular guy to notice them, even those who're way out of his "league". Among adult women the pattern is not much different. A lot of women spend their time chasing men who don't want them and couldn't give a damn that they even exist. Many women do this, whether they're ugly, attractive or somewhere in between. It's simply the order of life. My two sons are fairly good-looking strapping guys ... and although I don't consider neither of them "jerks" it's a ball for my husband and me to see how the girls (ugly, not so ugly, attractive, gorgeous) in our neighbourhood fall over themselves to get their attention, especially the older one. When the average looking or ugly girl grows tired and disheartened from not getting the "jerk" to notice her ... she goes back to the nice guy who welcomes her with open arms and provide his shoulder to cry on and his ear to hear how much a jerk the jerk is. Like she didn't know he was a jerk from day one ... ridiculous. The gorgeous girl, btw, does the same, but AFTER the jerk has broken her heart.
Anyhow, my discussion was NOT essentially about the girl, ugly or gorgeous. It was about the jerk and how he goes about getting some of the most attractive women EVEN when the not so attractive girl has other assets (that the gorgeous one doesn't have) he normally enjoys about women eg: breasts.
PK:
"Jerks possess the emotional savvy to know which signs women look for (both positive and negative) and present them accordingly. That's what they do: They control people for their benefit. That's what they view these people as: tools to please themselves. I've noticed that jerks are especially clever at knowing how to be sweet and sugary when they know it's to their advantage. "
Listen, a jerk might be skillful in playing his women, but there are ALWAYS telltale signs, especially during one-on-ones, available for those interested to see. Fact is, the women are not interested. They make excuses for his behaviour and convince themselves that X will never do anything to hurt them because they've deluded themselves into thinking they've changed the guy. When it comes to jerks perfectly hiding that they're not jerks ... not possible (at least not in most cases). I will concede that once in a blue moon, I hear of jerks who are exceptionally good at what they do, but they are not the rule. There are ALWAYS signs. Always. Furthermore, you're not taking into consideration that even if the girl is delusional she probably has friends and family that can see things more clearly ... but what happens? She doesn't listen when they try to caution her.
PK:
"I agree that we shouldn't manipulate others into what we want them to be. But at the same time, I think communication and relationships are about growth and changing to be more compatible, don't you think? I think it's a good thing for us to improve ourselves and work with others in our lives to grow, but we need to be respectful and reasonable in our timetable. That's all."
Davina (10:06pm, point 3):
"I'm not talking about the normal adjustments both men and women have to make when they invite a partner into their lives, but more on a fundamental level and in emasculating ways."
PK:
"This is assuming we can even talk about most men "choosing" women. At best, men "choose" which women to approach and go through a series of motions to try to get in bed with. Nearly all men have experienced rejection at some time or another consequently the notion of "choosing" a woman is a useless paradigm for most of them. You're projecting your own feminine perspective of choosing which man you'll allow to sleep with you on men. It doesn't work that way. Men and women are NOT the same. Has anyone every pointed that out to you? :-)"
First of all, if I didn't realise there was a difference between men and women, I wouldn't be here. I'd be over at feministing saying men and women are exactly the same in every possible circumstance. Kindly do not patronise me.
Secondly, though I'm not suggesting this is true for ALL women, I AM giving the female perspective on how women BELIEVE they've come to fall for jerks. Their usual claim is that the guy somehow tricked them into thinking they're either a nice guy or that they've changed their ways. I'm saying that is BS ... most women are aware of what they're picking up but they ignore logic and reason and get involved with the jerk anyway. They tell themselves, "I'm special, I'm not like his other girls and he'll see that, appreciate that and thereby change his ways." Vanity. Their vanity is their downfall. As I said I don't blame them for responding to the spell of the jerk ... because they ARE usually very attractive, witty, enigmatic people ... you'd have to be dead not to bask in their attentions. But you, PK, underestimate women if you think we can not notice when a guy is a jerk in disguise or not. My argument is that we can but choose not to because of said vanity.
Thirdly, about your choosing/rejection theory .... that is what I'm saying too! Average, nice guys ... the good guys are rejected because women (sadly the most attractive ones that these men being men, being visual, would hope to have) that tend to fall for jerks see NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO BE WITH NICE GUYS (I don't know how to italise on here so that's why they're bolded. Not because I'm shouting). They're boring or rather not exciting enough (according to these women's estimation), they're probably not all that hot or hot at all, they're not rich and probably don't have the potential to rich, they don't inspire lust within them ... why the heck should they be with these good guys then, hmm? What do they get??
They fall for the jerk because there's an incentive to do so. He's either hot or rich or on his way to being rich or exciting or all of the above. Couple this with their vanity (as described above), and they end up choosing the jerk over the nice guy ... only to discover later that no, he has not changed his ways, has no intention of doing so, has NEVER had any intention to do so ... and then what does the girl do? She cries foul. THAT is how these women who fall for jerks evaluate the situation. THAT is their rationalisation and my opinion is that this is ridiculous.
Maybe I did a lousy job of presenting my case because you and I are making almost identical points but somehow that seems to be lost on you. Or perhaps as I said earlier you just want to out-speak me ... a few of the other guys seemed to have gotten what I'm saying quite fine.
Anyway, this has been fun but I'm calling it quits. If you still don't get where I'm coming from then so be it. We can agree to disagree. It's a good thing I'm taking the day of work tomorrow or rather today...cheers.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 am
Agreed, Tony S. Doesn't have to be a limo or millions of dollars.
It can very well be, and is, in most cases, as you've described. After all only a small portion of the population has the lifestyle of Donald Trump.
I just use the Trump example because it's more symbolic.
Okay, now I really need some sleep! :-)
Good night ... or rather, morning!
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 am
Yes Davina,
You are very tolerant.
That is only one of your many attributes.
Copious amounts of psychological projection is another.
Because I like your writerly personality, I will moderate my jousting with you.
Of course, you will soon complain that I do not sufficiently engage with your on-screen persona.
W-o-r-d-s-o-n-s-c-r-e-e-n-s?
It is just an experiment!
No-thing personal.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am
TonyS says: "But keep in mind, wealth is relative. You might need a limo in New York, but in suburbia, it could just be a nice car and status job and in poor neighborhoods, status is gained in other ways (nice cars, good skills at whatever)."
My wife knows a lot of immigrant Asians who insist upon driving on Lexus, Mercedes, etc. She then went their places and discovered that they lived very frugally. A guy I knew in California drove a VERY nice Mercedes but it was on a lease. A lot of people (including women) seemed to be obsessed with impressing people via exterior, shallow displays. If a woman is impressed by a "limo", then she's going to be pretty easily manipulated by a poor jerk in other ways. Limo pickups can be arranged for about $200 bucks. A lot cheaper than an escort service...
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
PolishKnight: "A lot of people (including women) seemed to be obsessed with impressing people via exterior, shallow displays. If a woman is impressed by a "limo", then she's going to be pretty easily manipulated by a poor jerk in other ways."
I learned this lesson in real time circa 1985. One day, my dad had me take his 300ZX to the auto shop. I was around 19 then, and I'd only previously driven my beaten down Dodge Charger. Anyway, the looks I got driving that car from women on the road and the comments I got from women in the shop .... I felt like a rock star.
Unfortunately for me, I was always a somewhat grumpy social critic, and immediately drew the ire of the shallow shopclerk,. when I told her it was my dad's car, he had tawdry values and I was in college studying to be a writer and it's a shame that didn't matter in this crappy society. I also told her I beat a chronic illness that also most killed me and why were people not impressed with that but impressed with a piece of metal any idiot could get with credit. She wasn't amused.
Decades later, I stand by my words and refuse to drive anything flashy even though I could get pretty much anything cash right this minute. F*** her and f*** society. We live in a garbage society and I sometimes think on some level people don't deserve freedom because they're too stupid for it.
Also, anyone who genuine liked Huey Lewis circa 1985 is an idiot.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Nice Guys are Insecure at heart. So they end up smothering women and always make themselves visible. Obviously would you be attracted to a woman like that? The problem is nice guys don't see that they are indeed the problem and that they should stop listening to women "cry" about wanting a nice guy.
But the difference is we admit it, they (women) don't want too because they've been hurt by one to many jerks and truely believe looking for the nice guy is the right thing.
You can be a jerk and a nice guy at the same time (I call them men with balance).
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
ju1ce says: "You can be a jerk and a nice guy at the same time (I call them men with balance)."
"Extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice!" -- Barry Goldwater
Moderation is the ultimate "nice guy" thinking. Someone doesn't want to offend so they go neutral.
"We will single-handedly attack our arch-enemy: The neutral planet!" -- Zack Branagan, Futurama
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
TonyS says: "Also, anyone who genuine liked Huey Lewis circa 1985 is an idiot."
Oh well, I guess I should start wearing a bicycle helmet indoors and those dorky rubber shoes. I like HLATN and the B52's. I didn't listen to their music all the time, but I think it has a fun, irrelevent sound to it. I thought it was a wonderful contrast to the stuck-up attitudes leftist rock stars were getting. (I'm reminded of the cute commercial for freecreditreport.com where the grunge musician is driving to his dayjob at a crab shack place in a "used sub-compact"
Anyways, the real "millionaires" (at least on paper) out there are the guys who bought their homes 10 years ago and drive old clunkers and now have $200K SFH's worth a million bucks. Only bimbos go nuts for a guy with a nice car. (Ironic, isn't it, that the car culture is as much supported by women as men. In Europe, lots of people don't own cars at all.)
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Hello Davina,
I think we have a communications problem. Probably mostly on me since I like to look at very subtle distinctions and really drill down into a problem. Nobody is being "bad" here. Consider this example:
PK: And "jerks" are just as likely to be controlling and demanding. That's why they're called jerks, yes?
Davina: I can see no real difference in what you're saying and what I'm saying. The guy I'm describing above, a "jerk", is most definitely the one doing all the controlling and demanding, otherwise he wouldn't be coming and going and bedding as he pleases with a string of new women every week.
But you had said earlier:
Davina: i. The male b!tch (or jerk whichever you prefer ... for me variety is the spice of life) will basically bang anything in skirt and quickly move on to his next conquest without an ounce of remorse or a backward glance. He couldn't care less what you do or don't do once his interaction with you is over.
So you had said that the female bitch was controlling and now you're looking at it in a different way. I'm not blaming you for this. _I_ had to go back and look at what you wrote a while above to get the context right. PHILOSOPHICALLY, we can say that people are controlling by walking out just as much as someone who sticks around and uses other games. In fact, that's the biggest weapon in the manipulation arsenel a lot of women I know used. They insisted that men do the asking out because they wanted to use rejection as a power tool.
On the other hand, your original point is also valid: A man just having sex and walking out isn't a control freak ALTHOUGH to get to that point, as DanM points out, may require them to be controlling where a man degrades women by making them meow for cigarettes and give out phone numbers for a light. That's what I was talking about when saying jerks are controlling too.
In theory, it shouldn't be considered jerkish behavior for a good looking man (as you proposed most jerks are) to bang a woman for a night and then have her leave the next day. There are worse things in the world, from a masculine perspective, than an attractive or even acceptable person having sex with you and then leaving the next day. This brings us back to hookers. Women and men just have different attitudes about sex despite the myths the sexual revolution tried to perpetuate about women liking sex just as much as men (or at least in the same way.)
Do you see what I mean there? There's a lot of ways to look at this and I'm exploring the nuances and distinctions available especially in loaded terms such as "control" or "jerk".
Speaking of that, you may think I'm being a jerk. Maybe I am... Cheers.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
"Nice Guys are Insecure at heart. So they end up smothering women and always make themselves visible. Obviously would you be attracted to a woman like that? The problem is nice guys don't see that they are indeed the problem and that they should stop listening to women "cry" about wanting a nice guy."
With all due respect, I don't necessarily agree with this. I believe that a guy is MUCH more likely to date an insecure woman than the opposite situation (a woman dating an insecure male). Insecurity in a woman is sometimes a source of control for some males. Insecurity in a male, on the other hand, is often construed as weakness, and females seem to avoid these guys like the plague. But I believe there are plenty of sex-starved guys who are willing to date an insecure woman (which reminds me of those waylon jennings song lyrics that glenn recently posted)..........at least until her borderline symptoms kick in.
And I certainly don't believe that "nice guys" are the problem (after all, I am one of these nice guys myself). To say that "nice guys" are insecure seems a bit of a stretch. Nice guys and jerks alike can be "insecure".........in different ways, I suspect. Insecurity in a "nice guy" may be of the variety of constant reassurance, constant clinging, and affirmations. With a jerk, insecurity may manifest if a man feels threatened to display any feminine traits or court a woman who is taller or makes more money then he does. Although in general, I think that males are MUCH more likely to marry-up than a woman would (even when male insecurity is factored in).
Outside of the inter-gender "war," there also seems to be an intra-gender "war" as well: nice guys compete with jerks, and pretty women compete with unattractive women. To say that gender "wars" only involve men vs. women is seems incorrect.
MXY
P.S. I prefer the term "alpha" to "jerk", though, because it is not as mean-spirited.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I made a typo in my last post with this part:
"Although in general, I think that males are MUCH more likely to marry-up than a woman would (even when male insecurity is factored in)."
It should have read:
"Although in general, I think that males are MUCH more likely to marry-up than a woman is to marry-down (even when male insecurity is factored in)."
MXY
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:11 am
barsin Says:.
The next frontier is the stars, Bern old boy.
= = =
Flash back . . . I have not heard anyone call me that since somewhere around the time my parents died about 20 years ago . . .
I like it . . . ( - ' :
b
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Now what becomes interesting is that Davina is more present by her absence.
Postmodernism....
Mona Lisa's smile.
Or, was it a smirk?
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
---“She Says vs. He Says: Do Girls Really Like Dating Jerks?”
Probably not any more than men choose the wrong women for dates. There are just as many women out there who are “jerks” as there are men.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:47 am
I see an awful lot of women in the article above thinking THEY are the cat's meow and we men somehow owe them something just because they have a vagina. I think women who think that way deserve the jerks they get. Like the opening of the article -- a totally clueless counselor automatically presumes these young women have a clue or that this one particular young woman is worth more and then the young women open their dumb little mouths and reveal how totally clueless they are. Clueless, arrogant, selfish young women like that totally deserve jerks and don't deserve nice guys anyway. Nice guys need to avoid arrogant, selfish young women like that like the plague they truly are. Often you will find such young women are, in fact, psychotic. They will cause nice guys nothing but grief. This is part of the problem with feminism. It has convinced these young women that they are all perfect in every way and not responsible for their own faults. See how they turn their weakness for falling for some jerk into the jerk's fault. Frankly I'm now skeptical that these guys really are jerks. Just because a young women (or even their older confidantes -- like the clueless counselor in the opening) believe the guy is a 'jerk' doesn't necessarily mean he is.
We have family friends and they have a daughter who has been a lot of trouble to them. She was going with this kid and apparently they were having problems. She tried calling him and he was avoiding her or maybe he wasn't home when she called. She finally reached him and told him she would cut off his b***s if she caught him messing around. I know this is true because her own father was telling what happened with the poor guy present. The father thought it was funny. He told her boyfriend, "I know you were lying to her. I was young once too, ya know. You can't pull nothing over the old man!" I responded, "I think we send the WRONG people to war!" And frankly I do. I think we should send these arrogant young violent women instead of the guys we do and then those guys come back to the States and arrogant, violent young women like this have created a selfish system which even targets young men who have risked their lives for (in my opinion) a weak female-dominated society which has no right to expect ANY young men to die for it's selfish survival. But, at any rate back to the story. The father left the room and I advised the young man, "This is not to be taken lightly. Women like that ARE dangerous." I didn't necessarily mean that she would actually do what she threatened. I meant that women who would do that would lie and file false charges against a young man. They will also be abusive and manipulative in other ways. I told him that I have been with a psychotic woman and know what they are like. I gave him some information to contact others for advice and he thanked me. I believe I was the only person who had any idea that he needed help.
Shortly after that he broke up with her. And even her mother was angry at him. One of my sisters said HE was a 'jerk' or some similar name for dumping the girl. So in my experience, just because a woman says something is true or that a guy is a 'jerk', doesn't necessarily mean that he is. It's just her opinion and the women illustrated in the article are not women whose opinions I would frankly value one bit. They are just as conceited and self-centered as the family friend's daughter, wife and my own sister.
And since then the girl has found another boyfriend and threatened both him and her mother with a baseball bat. She was selling drugs to minors out of her car. She threatened to stab herself when her mother caught her in a lie about hanging out with her doper friends and her father tried to stop her and she ended up stabbing him. Not seriously though. But I'm supposed to believe that her mother or my sister have a clue as to what is really going on? Or that their opinions are important as to which men are 'jerks' and which are 'nice guys'? It's all about you women, isn't it? If it's not about you -- then he's just no good. He has to measure up to YOUR standards but it can never be the other way around because that is chauvinism.
What's really funny is that exactly what this young woman did -- threatened to assault her boyfriend and mother with a baseball bat -- is exactly what one of our employees (family trucking company) was falsely accused of doing by his girlfriend. Short story version. She accused him of infidelity. He says falsely. He broke it off with her. She was stalking him. She gouged out the ignition in his car. He was fixing it and she drove up and started some trouble with him. He told me that he did say words to her but he never threatened her and never did anything to her truck. She drove off and called the cops and claimed that he damaged her truck with a baseball bat and threatened her with the bat as well. The cops (here in Rutherford County cops are such feminist lackeys that they will even arrest brother cops if a woman wants it done -- so much for the "Fraternal" Order of Police! lol Cops wouldn't know what true Brotherhood was if it bit them you know where). Anyway the cops arrested him on her word alone. He was forced to pay $1000 bond and put on probation. Fast forward 3 years and he violated that probation and Metro Nashville cops came with five squad cars officers with guns drawn just because of that. For violating his probation based on a false charge filed by his girlfriend 3 years before. And the judge was going to give him 10 years but allowed him to go back on probation.
And my sister's attitude is that if he is stupid enough to stay with the psycho girlfriend (and they are still on again/off again -- even I say go figure to that but I don't say that her evil action was his fault). But my sister thinks it's okay for guys like that to be thrown in jail and have to deal with the court system when women file false charges like that. And I have a nephew whose girlfriend abuses him from time to time and the attitude of females in my family is also that if he is stupid enough to stay with her that is his fault.
So when I hear of women having to deal with jerks treating them badly (as long as it's not physical abuse) or better yet when a nice guy gets wise and dumps a girl who is a b***h, I say, "Good! Better to dump her than end up like Wil Hetherington, Dr. Tim Emerson, our driver or my nephew or how I might have ended up (poor and hounded by govt agencies; in prison; dead) had I stayed with the psycho woman who thought she had me all to herself.
Barry Jernigan
College Grove, TN
And if you think I'm misogynist, do something about it! lol Good luck. It seems to me that this crap has gone on too long and more and more guys are talking exactly the same way I do. I guess ladies will have to learn to deal with it now. Too bad. So sad. I think the straw that broke the camel's back to me was the soldiers. You ladies should have at least had the decency and sense to avoid attacking the soldiers who risk their lives to protect your miserable rights. Not a smart move on your parts at all in my strong opinion. You got too smug for your own good and that was real careless on your part. Tsk, tsk, tsk ;-)
March 4th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Duh, where's the news? Us nice guys have known it for quite a while...
And afaik, the opposite isn't true. Guys don't go for bitches; they go for girls who are their own person, not a misandric maneater or a doormat.
Women claim to be more intelligent than us men, but from what I guess, they actually aren't.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I'm siding with the women really; they're just chosing what they like, you can't really criticize that. A lot of 'nice guys' who make these arguments are exactly what the women criticise them for being; boring.
Women are making a choice between exciting jerks and boring nice guys, and OK, they're being shortsighted to complain about the inevitable results of their free choice, but who hasn't whined about things that are their own fault?
If the phenomenom under discussion was women chosing jerks over nice guys when everything else was equal, then fine, they're being stupid, but that's not often the case. The good news: it's easier to learn how to be exciting than it is to stop being a jerk, so stop complaining and start paying attention to why jerks are getting more women:
IMPORTANTLY, it's not because they are jerks. It's because being a jerk happens to go along with other things that women find attractive. A bit like in evolution, where a trait can piggyback on another trait that is selected for, even though it's not beneficial itself.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Apparently, Mona Lisa has left the building.
In effect .... end of an interesting thread.....
March 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Yes, we are boring...yes, we are stable, we show up when we say we will, we keep promises we make, yes we're the same every day. Which means:
--we don't get women pregnant and walk away
--we don't take money for food / medicine / rent and spend it to get high
--we don't lose job after job, usually with long periods of unemployment in between
--we don't hit women (or anyone, for that matter)
--we don't go to jail
--we don't come home drunk or high
Yup, if stability is boring, we are the kings of boredom. I've been on the receiving end of a few of the phone calls / conversations about "him", and I've been mystified by why women bother. I still am, but I think they're getting what they asked for. For the woman who loves me (and she does, boredom and all!), living well is the best revenge.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The problem "nice guys" seem to have in common is the reluctance to accept that women are sexual beings. Ok, one of the common problems...
But it's significant.
For example, why do you think it's more important for a woman to have a guy that comes home every night than, say, a guy who gives her mind-blowing orgasms every single time they have sex...? Or a nice stable income is more important than a guy who has something FUN to do every weekend? Do you seriously believe that? Would YOU rather date a hottie who's terrific in the sack, or someone who does laundry well and knows how to cook an excellent turkey? These women are dating these men - not to put too fine a point on it - because these men make these women wet.
Be serious people.
The fact, the FACT, is that men select the women they are interested in, women select from this pool of men the one(s) they want to sleep with....out of these men, she will eventually pare this down to one guy they want to "get serious" with. So sure, I see the indignation...I mean, we only get to select once, then we have to jump through all these hoops (perfectly) or we have no future. Sure women's expectations are ridiculous at times. I have learned to adjust in my own way, but I'm sure there are women out there without impossibly high standards, if anyone cares enough to look, and you find an extra under 30, let me know.....
But here's the thing nice guys...something that if you EVER want to get past the label you would do well to internalize....
They have to want to sleep with you before they'll want to date you seriously. If they don't want to sleep with you, but they want to be your "friend" and tell you all their troubles, they are USING you for the emotional component of their dysfunctional relationship. Read this paragraph....
Women fall for "jerks" because they're usually funny, exciting, dangerous, adventurous, and INTERESTING to be around. They don't like "jerks", they like the activities and the excitement. Spend the next 4 months celibate, but try your damndest to get every woman you meet to talk to you, about anything, regardless of how "hot" they are. Remember, you are NOT to ask for a date, even if you meet your "soul mate" or some other nonsense. The goal is to tease them like they're your bratty little sister. Remove the emotional investment, do this as "homework", where you have no real interest in the outcome.
By the end of the 4 months, your cell phone will be FULL of phone numbers, and if you've been smart, you've been calling those to work on your phone skills.
That's right, skills. This is something you need to work on, then do it. It's a skill, just like cutting wood, or painting, or being able to read a spreadsheet properly. More to the point, it's a series of skills acquired through trial and error. You need to develop a thicker skin too, since there ARE women out there that like attention, and eat it up, but have NO interest in things going further....those are the women working on THEIR skills (and yes, they have to "work" at different things).
Don't be a jerk, be fun, and interesting, and exciting. If nothing else, your life will be a lot more enjoyable. But it's not unrealistic to expect you will have a virtual entourage of hot women by the time you've established yourself.
Or, I suppose, you could continue to whine about the unfairness of it all....as long as you don't mind if people like me take the girl you like home at the end of the night.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
By the way, the cigarette thing was done in a very non-cynical way...it was teasing and fun, for everyone involved, including her.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Sorry to repost continually...
One thing I forgot to add....most jerks didn't start out as jerks. Speaking from experience, when I found out just how shallow and vapid the vast majority of women are, I was so disillusioned I spent nearly a year with NO interest in women, not even in a sexual way. I call that the "pedestal drop".
Now I know they're just like me, they enjoy a quick shag in the closet at work just as much as I do, and women really DO like to do all sorts of "nasty" stuff that I'm sure everyone they know would be appalled at. I've since gotten over my disappointment that women weren't/aren't virtuous innocent delicate things.....although I can say that what they are (have become?) is really quite unattractive on anything other than a purely physical level, for the most part. Actually that's not entirely true, since I have several female friends I only occasionally sleep with, and they're decent people.
But once you KNOW you can select from several attractive women, your tolerance for bullsh!t goes out the window.....maybe THAT is the reason men like me are called "jerks"...
March 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
My main comments concern things that I think are consistently overlooked in articles like the one above but are instantly glaringly obvious to me. That these women are so clueless and arrogant that they don't see anything wrong with comments like, "You could have any boy in school" or that their opinion as to what makes a man a 'jerk' should be considered the definition of that word or that their opinions should even matter at all when they are so blatantly self-centered. They don't have anything to offer a good man but a life time of trouble with them. So, as I stated above, I don't believe selfish harpies like that deserve a good man.
I don't have a jealous bone in my body in reference to guys who do whatever women want just to get as much sex as they want. I don't really care. I WILL say that I think a lot of those guys will end up very sorry that they weren't more careful. And then guys like me will probably have to help them out in the future. lol
On another blog I discussed a psychotic woman that I spent time with. She was a teacher in the public school system in the US. One of the first things she said to me when we were alone in the hotel was, "Do you want me to tie you up?" So I don't have a problem with what other guys do in private. Big deal. More power to them, I say.
I DO have a problem with men in positions of power and importance who consistently give women their way and betray their brothers to the feminist system. Male police officers, male lawyers, male judges, male politicians, men in the mass media (like actors who keep playing negative male stereotype roles -- Home Improvement and Everybody Loves Raymond are good examples of these), male journalists who take the woman's side in disputes, etc. Whether the men are rad fems themselves or just chivalrous idiots doesn't make any difference to me. Both are enemies to their brothers.
These, to me anyway, are really important issues. Not whether some guy is getting more noogie than other guys because he lies to women. Women lie too and a recent book indicates they have NO shame that they do so. I actually think it's a good thing this book is being published even if the author presents it like women's lying is a necessity for 'protection'. To me that translates that women will lie to keep what they have or to get what they want. Even sex. So some of these guys that are getting more sex are also giving it and I think in some cases the women are the ones benefitting more and especially if it results in her getting pregnant and taking him to the cleaners.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Yes, women will always use nice guys while bedding jerks, and nice guys will be left playing solitaire while the jerks breed another generation of jerks. Sadly, it has become part of our culture-just look at any TV advertisement, show or cartoon. What's the difference between a hooker and a girlfriend/spouse? With a hooker, you usually get your money's worth!
May 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Hmm. I haven't read through all the comments here so this has probably been pointed out already but women are turned on by and attracted to a-holes. It's hard-wired into them and it's not ever going to change. It's a biological fact. People can moan about it all they want but it's never going to be any different.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Kobo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Hmm. I haven't read through all the comments here so this has probably been pointed out already but women are turned on by and attracted to a-holes. It's hard-wired into them and it's not ever going to change. It's a biological fact. People can moan about it all they want but it's never going to be any different.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I believe you missed the point entirely and then reversed it. The point is that since what you state we believe in general to be true, We do NOT want to hear these WOMEN MOAN about making a BAD choice when selecting a man.
b
August 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
People who always use the line that "the brutes/jerks" are more fit to survive than the "nice/good guys", are missing a crucial point.
In actuality, people believe that being brutes/jerks makes you stronger. That's the only reason it would make one stronger. But when the shit hits the fan, the "bad boy" will likely become an outcast of the tribe, for messing around. Jerks only know how to steal things, attention and fame for one. They can't be responsible fathers. They can't even be responsible with themselves and other humans, because they are jerks to them. Once a person sees through his games, he is done with.
So by far once this happens does it actually become clear that the Good Guy/Real Man, wins, and is actually fitter for survival, and fitter for the survival of the Species.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Another thing I would like to add, is that... nobody really knows the truth about our nature. That means our evolution as well. The mind affects DNA. If we are "biologically programmed" who do you think programmed this into us? Ourselves! Can we change, for the Betterment of Mankind (evolution)? Of course we can. We are not to be slaves to what we consider "primitive instinct", especially when it does us harm.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
In the case, we were programmed by another being.. We Still can change. We don't have to be slaves to "primitive instincts" which have supposedly been programmed into us by another. In the end, it's all programming. And the mind can reprogram the brain, and thus the body, though it may take some "work".
August 9th, 2009 at 6:03 am
[...] "education" can so easily control them, and men just as well. Take a look at this: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1851#comment-999784 quote: When I taught high school, students often came to me with their problems. Sometimes the [...]