Talk About Marriage banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Nice guys are not nice or moral

27K views 282 replies 44 participants last post by  EleGirl 
#1 · (Edited)
We all have seen it and a lot of have felt ourselves that being a "nice" guy ought to be something special to women especially in the backdrop of a lot of men and that treat them poorly. The Manosphere and PUA sights are packed full of guys trying to reform this mentality by following various "thought" leaders on how they themselves can go "alpha". The end product tends to a misogynistic peon to the "good old days" of a stronger patriarchy.

I think what reforming nice guys are missing is that it used to be enough just to be "nice guy" and a provider because we lived in a world where there was no social safety net and women needed men to just survive because they themselves could accumulate very little economic power. Women where structurally coerced by society into the arms of men and having a 'nice guy' provider was something special in this context. The white knight needs the dragon to be anything more than a guy in a tin suit. Egalitarian marriages where common but they where a gift of power and not a right.

Today the field has shifted and women in general wield a lot more economic and sexual power than they used to. They generally can decide when they have sex and when to have children the social safety net is there to catch us all. As such they rightly look and expect more out of the hard work required for a relationship than just a guy that pays rent and does not beat her.

So if you are a nice guy and you are despairing over the tragic fact the world does not love you for your niceness, consider that you are basically wishing that women will be coerced into your arms by an awful world. Being 'nice', having a job, paying bills, thats just where it starts. You have to be something desirable beyond that to make it worthwhile for a modern women to love and stay with you.

I am not a 'feminist' by any stretch of the imagination and I realize that I am painting things pretty black and white which is always a hazard. There are all kinds of men and women that don't fit this, but I think applies to a lot of "nice guys" out there who think all to highly of the morality of their niceness.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
So just curious what do you suggest for "nice" guys, and I use that term loosely on this website?

I'm a nice guy and have a love for women. I have seen a few women I would have liked to be with go off with guys who beat them, drain them emotionally and physically, and treat them like crap. I wouldn't have done any of that to them but they went a different path.

So what am I to do. Wasn't an attraction issue just apparently wasn't bad boy enough for them. So am I to fake that to get them? Can tell you right now I wouldn't do that.

At the end of the day men and women make silly choices in who they date. I married a beautiful dream girl woman who cheated and left me. Was poor decision making as are women who overlook nice guys to meet the men like I described above. We always seem to be our own worse enemy. I will hope for better for my own daughters and hope they avoid the bad boy phase all together
 
#6 ·
I think your picking at edges of this that fall into my disclaimer. There are all kinds of bad and good and clearly a 'nice guy' ought to be more desirable than someone that is a abusive, but then then, as you say, people make very bad choices.

I suppose my point is that women feel a bit more free to risk making moderately bad choices in expectations of finding someone that is interesting, engaging, and dynamic enough in content of their life and personality to continue to be an interesting partner. Where before in history the consequences of being without support where often dire. The role of marriage has changed-- a victim of the success of the modern era and is no longer a partnership for survival.

To answer your question directly, the "nice guys" I am talking about are basically guys that overvalue the basic expectations of being a good partner. EG employed, care taking, sharing, giving ect... The absence of this stuff is significant to a relationship, but the presence of it is not anything special pushed to an extreme is in fact unattractive.
 
#3 ·
Personally, I think the "nice guy" in "No More Mr. Nice Guy" should have been replaced with "doormat". The opposite of a nice guy is not an anal sphincter. The opposite is someone (male or female, for that matter) who is willing to stand up for themselves, their needs, and the needs of the people who are important to them. That doesn't mean that they always have to get their way on everything. That doesn't mean mistreating people just because they can or want to. It means communicating on your feelings and boundaries, and making a stand when you need to. Whether it's with your spouse, a friend, a boss, or a complete stranger. And as a coincidence, your partner (and others) will respect you more because of that, and it's much more likely you'll get more luvin' because they do respect you.

My $0.02 worth...

C
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#4 ·
Well I agree which is why I said I use the term loosely Nice guy here on TAM. I am a nice guy but I am NO doormat, I always put my family friends and kids above myself, I am the one my friends always call for help and I give it when I can. But if I need help and can't count on them then I am done with them. Think the nice guy term here is beyond warped
 
#8 ·
ScrambledEggs,

You are asking us to explore a profound subject. What goes into the upbringing of a nice guy? It's some combination of family, schooling and genetics, or?

Are there more nice guys among the poor, middle class or well to do?

At what age do these traits and habits become second nature?
 
#61 ·
I meant to get back and answer this.

I personally think it is nature and nurture together. This used to be a very successful survival and procreation strategy and in evolutionary terms that was a split second ago on the clock.

Your question about demographics is interesting but I know of no way to answer it. There would have to be a study on that polled people with 'nice guy' expectations and behaviors. That said I am going to take a risk here and suppose that people with less economic or social power struggle with this more since other classes have more options available to evolve into.

I think this starts very young.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Control to choose one's own direction is a good thing so the good ole days weren't so good for everyone. I'd hate to think my wife married me because I was the best bad option.

The root of "nice guy" syndrome is insecurity and fear of being alone IMO. And when personal boundaries and self esteem play second fiddle, bad crap's on the way.
 
#16 ·
Control to choose one's own direction is a good thing so the good ole days weren't so good for everyone. I'd hate to think my wife married me because I was the best bad option.

The root of "nice guy" syndrome is insecurity and fear of being alone IMO. And when personal boundaries and self esteem play second fiddle, bad crap's on the way.
:iagree:

That's why he's always willing to please even though it's inimical to his interests. he thinks in the long term, it will serve his interest. Passive aggressive.

He goes to extreme lengths and does things that he thinks would make him more attractive to the opposite sex.

Interesting thing about women who are experienced is that they can sniff out that insecurity underneath all its pretentious layers.

But being " doormat" isn't gender specific.
 
This post has been deleted
#18 ·
Isn't the "nice" guy in No More Mr. Nice Guy extremely passive aggressive? That is not a doormat. Aggression is aggression and passive aggression is not nice.
Yep “Mr. Nice Guy” is passive aggressive. He’s not a doorman and he’s not a nice person.
My ex was a self-proclaimed Nice Guy. He is not nice at all. Men are quick on TAM to attack women and accuse them of having a bad boy complex, when in fact some of us were simply poor judges of character and fell for the nice guy act and got what Psychology Today calls a Mirage Man.
Yep, this happened to me. I like the “Mirage Man”. But “Mr. Nice Guy” fits very well too since these types of men tend to make their aggression with the appearance of being very nice. Over time, as they get more and more passive aggressive it’s a lot easier to see that they actually not nice people. But the usually have to outside word fooled because of their “Mr. Nice Guy” Mirage.
Mr. Nice Guy picks and chooses his niceties to feel good about HIMSELF, mine who beat me up in front of my child, would give homeless people money and then come home and gaslight me.
Yes!!! This!!!! This is what sucks you into a relationship with this kind of guy. Ya marry them and then you find out who you really married.
Isn't that the point of the OP though? Mr. Nice Guys are not really nice.
yep

(And yes there are plenty of "Ms. Nice Gals" as well.)
 
#27 ·
Could you clarify what sweeping generalizations about "nice" men were made?



Seems some here have stated, and none have voiced disagreement, that the syndrome exists in gals and not just guys.
 
This post has been deleted
#23 · (Edited)
Forest you missed the entire point of this thread and rush in with what you apparently assume is an intellectual retort, it is passive aggressive, did we touch a "nice" nerve?
That didn't take long. Predictably:

"you disagree with our internet musings and generalizations? You must be one of the class we are degrading, by golly."

I guess you are not nice, by the same theory, right?

Personally, I wish these nice guys would all move off somewhere with all the red-headed, left handed people and leave us all alone.
 
#24 ·
The "Nice guy" personality is not just confined to mixed gender relationships. It exists in same sex friendships as well, usually when one person is desperately lonely and doesn't really know how to make true friends..

I strongly disagree with the prevailing wisdom on the internet inasmuch as I believe that the biggest single flaw of the "Nice guy" is not just his/her inability to sniff out an "Entitled taker" and mentally write them off, but their outright fatal attraction to them.
 
#30 ·
I don't think k I even want to be called a "nice guy"....

I was nice for so long....maybe I was trying to get that approval... My wife seemed to like all the nice things I did for her to get her love.....Thank god I stopped all that....I discovered my flaws.

Is there some " flaw" in a nice guy?

Is the "nice" guy trying to compensate in areas he is lacking?

Is the "nice" guy somebody with a hidden agenda?
 
This post has been deleted
#32 ·
Now you've claimed the victory with no effort other than saying your are right. That sounds pretty nice to me.

You are making assumptions that everyone will automatically agree with you, being, after all you are right. That's nice, too.
The trouble is, you and Ele Girl (is:Nice Guys are not Nice Or Moral not enough of a broad generalization for you?) may know exactly what you mean when you talk about "Nice Guys". You are in on the joke.

You don't stop to consider that the world at large considers panning "nice guys" as a pretty strange obsession. Nice guys stop and change tires, help with packages, fix things, help neighbors and friends. Now you lump them in with any man that you feel doesn't live up to your needs and expectations.

So, when challenged, fall back on the old "see, I'm right" failsafe.

Still think I'm nice?
 
#29 ·
The trouble with labels is the variation in definitions that each individual has.

I assume the participants of this thread that label themselves nice guys believe it is positive and alpha is negative.

I don't.

My definition of a nice guy is a phony that has no game. My definition of alpha is taking care of business.

Alpha is not beating women, acting dominant and being a manipulative geek and pea****ing.

Alpha to me is taking care of your own, investing your god given abilities for the betterment of mankind, being kind and thoughtful to others and honoring the expectations of our culture and our own integrity.

To bed countless women and act like an all around douche nozzle is not alpha in my book. It's just being a douche. I also think acting like a panzy and acting like it's your pleasure to kiss a womenz azz so you cant get her panties off with nice guy tactics is also being a douche.

None of this is ever going away. Do what is right, honest and courageous is alpha.

Being a phony whether you are pretending to be nice beta or pretending to be not nice alpha is all bullzhit.

I can only hope it is all 100% see through but I know it isn't and never will be. I am raising a daughter and I have told her, gee what beautiful eyes you have really means gee I would really like to put my hand in your bra.
 
#45 ·
You make good points but I put a considerably amount of effort in the OP to define my usage, in this case, of "nice guy". It is has been taken further by people in this thread in ways I don't disagree with. For example the extent at which the "nice" character can be used as a passive aggressive weapon. While I had not considered that, it clear is an accurate way to look at the practical behavior that comes from my definition of a "nice guy"

My original point is just that notion of wining affection by just being nice and a provider needs women to feel otherwise coerced for that to be special. And that fact puts the "nice guy" mentality" on shaky moral ground...
 
#39 ·
I'm generally viewed as a nice guy by friends and family. They all know what's acceptable and not acceptable to me personally and respect that. In turn,I respect their boundaries.
 
#40 ·
Read the "Sticky" in the top of the Men's Clubhouse forum. This might help some of you understand how the term "Nice Guy" is used here. Its not to be confused with being a genuine nice person. The term as it is used here is largely based on Glover's "No More Mister Nice Guy" book.
 
#42 ·
Let me start off by saying that I consider myself to be a rather perennial nominee for Nice Guy! But under no circumstances am I the "Gloverian" variety.

If you're my friend, and I'm treated with respect or as a friend, then there is absolutely nothing that I wouldn't do for you! But if you treat me shoddily or with disrespect, I probably wouldn't urinate in your guts if you were engulfed in flames ~ well, not unless you begged me to and I could actually see exactly what state of distress that you were in!

And while Glover's book is noteworthy and a great piece of work, I do not, in any way, begin to reflect the "nice guy" that he so vividly exhibits!
 
#47 ·
@Forest, I think you really are missing the whole plot. You entered this thread with:

Strange that in the 21st Century when you'd never dream of publicly deriding someone for being a certain race, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, etc -- its fine to make the most broad, sweeping generalizations about men that are "nice".
This statement ignores the fact that I took pains to clearly describe the "nice guy" behavior that I view as negative and even immoral. I even put down a few words to point out that this did not apply to everyone but to "Nice guys who overvalue their niceness" You have not addressed any of that, but smeared what I wrote as a generalization of all nice behavior. If you are going to be so biting in your criticism you ought to put more effort in explaining what and who's words you have issue with and why.

I have no idea if you are any kind of "nice guy" but you do seem defensive in a way that is otherwise inexplicable. You seem to be focused, I think, on defending the purity or flexibility of term "nice guy" as a positive thing. And you are doing so in a confrontational manner when I am sure no one would disagree with you on that later point. And to my point, being nice is positive, but it is not enough for a marriage.
 
#50 ·
@Forest, I think you really are missing the whole plot. You entered this thread with:



This statement ignores the fact that I took pains to clearly describe the "nice guy" behavior that I view as negative and even immoral. I even put down a few words to point out that this did not apply to everyone but to "Nice guys who overvalue their niceness" You have not addressed any of that, but smeared what I wrote as a generalization of all nice behavior. If you are going to be so biting in your criticism you ought to put more effort in explaining what and who's words you have issue with and why.

I have no idea if you are any kind of "nice guy" but you do seem defensive in a way that is otherwise inexplicable. You seem to be focused, I think, on defending the purity or flexibility of term "nice guy" as a positive thing. And you are doing so in a confrontational manner when I am sure no one would disagree with you on that later point. And to my point, being nice is positive, but it is not enough for a marriage.
How about the amount of effort you placed into the title of the thread? That sounds very soft and friendly, right? By the way, why post this on The Men's Clubhouse?

The point is you've read some huckster's book and believed so wholly, you feel the rest of the world must also be on the same page. The guy is an internet author, touring with seminars to cash in on people's emotions. He runs an internet school call TPI University. Total Personal Integration. He doesn't list his scholastic background on his website or facebook page, but his LinkedIn page claims he is a graduate of Harding University in Searcy, Ark, and Texas Woman's University.

Since I feel the talk is groundless, and your terminology overbroad, you're only defense is to finger point? Should I point back and say that you must obviously be a woman with control issues? Fair?
 
#49 ·
We all have seen it and a lot of have felt ourselves that being a "nice" guy ought to be something special to women especially in the backdrop of a lot of men and that treat them poorly. The Manosphere and PUA sights are packed full of guys trying to reform this mentality by following various "thought" leaders on how they themselves can go "alpha". The end product tends to a misogynistic peon to the "good old days" of a stronger patriarchy.

I think what reforming nice guys are missing is that it used to be enough just to be "nice guy" and a provider because we lived in a world where there was no social safety net and women needed men to just survive because they themselves could accumulate very little economic power. Women where structurally coerced by society into the arms of men and having a 'nice guy' provider was something special in this context. The white knight needs the dragon to be anything more than a guy in a tin suit. Egalitarian marriages where common but they where a gift of power and not a right.

Today the field has shifted and women in general wield a lot more economic and sexual power than they used to. They general can decide when they have sex and when to have children the social safety net is there to catch us all. As such they rightly look and expect more out of the hard work required for a relationship than just a guy that pays rent and does not beat her.

So if you are a nice guy and you are despairing over the tragic fact the world does not love you for your niceness, consider that you are basically wishing that women will be coerced into your arms by an awful world. Being 'nice', having a job, paying bills, thats just where it starts. You have to be something desirable beyond that to make it worthwhile for a modern women to love and stay with you.

I am not a 'feminist' by any stretch of the imagination and I realize that I am painting things pretty black and white which is always a hazard. There are all kinds of men and women that don't fit this, but I think applies to a lot of "nice guys" out there who think all to highly of the morality of their niceness.
I'm a guy, and what you wrote is basically the conclusion I have come to as well. I've often said that today's women are certainly looking for something different than our grandmothers and possibly mothers were looking for. I don't particularly see it as a positive thing.
 
#55 ·
I don't think culture has settled on healthy archetypes with the break down of the patriarchal family. At least not yet. We are going to have to figure this out the hard way and maybe it will always be in some flux.

All that said I think it would be a great evil on women to wish for it back.
 
#53 ·
If you're interested in other titles that people who buy Glover's book also buy, according to Amazon:

Models: How To Attract Women Through Honesty

What Women Want In A Man

What Women Want, And How To Give It To Them

Get Inside Her: Dirty Dating Tips and Secrets


Nothing sells like desperation.
 
#57 ·
If you're interested in other titles that people who buy Glover's book also buy, according to Amazon:

Models: How To Attract Women Through Honesty

What Women Want In A Man

What Women Want, And How To Give It To Them

Get Inside Her: Dirty Dating Tips and Secrets


Nothing sells like desperation.
The bolded does not sound bad, does it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happyfamily
#66 ·
ScrambledEggs,

If your point is that usually being truly nice is a necessary but not sufficient way to be to develop and maintain attraction of another, I would agree with that. Further, I'm glad it's that way.

There are lots of nice people in the world. Some I'd be attracted to and others I would not.

As my marriage has eroded, my wife's attraction towards me has disappeared. Being a good father and provider and all around nice guy has not prevented that. My (previous) lack of setting limits with her has likely made it difficult for her attraction to survive, I suspect. I am doing better with that these days. Although she is respecting those limits now that they are clear, her attraction towards me has not returned.
 
#68 ·
These discussions are full of the fallacy of definition.

"nice" already has a definition, which the PUA crowd has attempted to commandeer:

nice: adjective - pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory.
"Nice" is distorted by the PUA fringe into a synonym for "doormat", "pushover", "underconfident" etc., none of which has been attractive in a man since time immemorial.

I disagree with the false "history" both PUA and feminism presents. I was a double major in college with Anthropology (Social Anthropology) as my second major. These PUA phonies don't know anything about the rich diversity of cultures, some of which were matriarchal, some patriarchal, many more polygamist than people realize...

The women's movement goes far, far further back than the feminists of the 1960's and 1970's. More than a century further. What differs from the women's movement in the 1800's from now is the Misandry that has become so politically correct.

I could not disagree more with the "nice guy provider" claim, as it fronts the image of "girly men", not the strong, capable and confident leader archetype of the past. I also disagree with the pretense of women working as a modern phenomenon, and ESPECIALLY the ignorance of women as an industrial or even military archetype:

WWI




WWII



Women were doing hard labor in the fields and factories as long ago and also before the industrial revolution. They have been leaders of armies - Joan of Arc, Laskarina Bouboulina, Juana Azurduy - I can name at least a dozen. Too many Queens/Czars to list: absolute sovereigns over mighty empires.


This complete ignorance of real history and fabrication of a false history is one of the main reasons the misogyny of PUA and the misandry of feminism have gotten such social currency today.
 
#71 ·
These discussions are full of the fallacy of definition.

"nice" already has a definition, which the PUA crowd has attempted to commandeer:



"Nice" is distorted by the PUA fringe into a synonym for "doormat", "pushover", "underconfident" etc., none of which has been attractive in a man since time immemorial.
That God some masculinity has been injected here, though it had to be from a woman.
 
#70 ·
Hf, are you referring to the past in America? Didn't fathers get custody of children in other countries in the past?

I don't think I am a victim of my husband's economic power, but I would be at risk if he ever divorced me. He could go back to his country and I would not get any more support.

I haven't worked in 20 years. I trust him to take care of me, but if he wanted to be a jerk, he could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adelais
#72 ·
Hf, are you referring to the past in America? Didn't fathers get custody of children in other countries in the past?
We have to take this on a country by country basis if you want to do intercultural studies. The US is primarily an outgrowth of English Common Law in terms of the white tradition. Native traditions varied.

I don't think I am a victim of my husband's economic power, but I would be at risk if he ever divorced me. He could go back to his country and I would not get any more support.

I haven't worked in 20 years. I trust him to take care of me, but if he wanted to be a jerk, he could.
A couple of things. First, if alimony was still in effect as it once was - your risk was lower. Do you understand alimony and how it has changed since "women's liberation"? Sincere question.

Second, introducing the issue of escaping the country is a red herring. A man can head to any country without extradition after robbing a bank too, but that doesn't have anything to do with women vs. men or mean that there are no laws against robbing banks. A man can also shoot himself in the head. Or shoot you and the kids. All of those end the necessity of supporting anyone but are all red herrings in this discussion.

Also not meant unkindly. I am disagreeing with this overstatement about women having no economic power in the past and vastly greater economic power now. They haven't even defined what they mean by economic power. It is more a buzzword feminists have used that upon inspection means a lot less than they attribute to it.
 
#73 ·
Well, I have heard that it takes being married 20 years or more to get alimony nowadays, and that many states are phasing it out. I don't know the history of it.
 
#74 ·
I don't know. If we are just talking the U.S., it seems about 15% of women worked outside the home in factories, being paid less than men, in 1850. I suppose that means they worked the same job and got paid less, but the article I read didn't specify.

Before 1830, it seems women who were single held jobs as midwives, worked in taverns, or worked for other families in their homes.

It seems the women of the era before 1830 who owned businesses, were widows.

That part of her premise, seems pretty close.
 
#78 ·
It is irrelevant what fraction of women were doing work outside the home 2ntuf. It is far higher than people realize, but still irrelevant. What is relevant is whether a wife had rights to marital assets, including the income of her husband.
If you say so. I thought it was relevant to the op's position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top